'niv.of  111.  Library 

51 

32.1$ 


Oak  Street 
UNCLASSIFIED 


and  the 


War  in  Europe 

A Symposium  ° 


THE  WOMEN  OF  LIEGE 

BY  EVA  KATHERINE  GIBSON 

o 

GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  THE  WAR 

BY  A.  MAURICE  LOW,  M.  A. 

Washington  Correspondent  of  the  London  Morning  Post 
Author  of  “The  American  People,  a Study  in  National  Psychology” 

GERMANY  INTERPRETED  BY  A 
• GERMAN-AMERICAN 

BY  “AN  AMERICAN  CITIZEN  of  German  Parentage” 

THE  VICE  REGENT  OF  GOD  AND 
HIS  CHOSEN  PEOPLE 
BY  WILLIAM  H.  SKAGGS 

WITH  RED  EYES 

A CHANT  OF  HATE  AGAINST  ENGLAND 
BY  ERNST  LISSAUER 

THE  DAY 

BY  HENRY  CHAPPELL 


Compiled  by  William  H.  Skaggs 


Price:  Twenty-five  cents 


America 

and  the 

War  in  Europe 

A Symposium 


Injustice,  swift,  erect,  and  unconfined, 

Sweeps  the  wide  earth,  and  tramples  o’er  mankind, 

While  Prayers,  to  heal  her  wrongs,  move  slow  behind. 

Homer-Pope’s  Trans. 


“A  land  without  ruins  is  a land  without  memories — a land  without 
memories  is  a land  without  history.  A land  that  wears  a laurel  crown 
may  be  fair  to  see ; but  twine  a few  sad  cypress  leaves  around  the 
brow  of  any  land,  and  be  that  land  barren,  beautiless  and  bleak,  it 
becomes  lovely  in  its  consecrated  coronet  of  sorrow,  and  it  wins  the 
sympathy  of  the  heart  of  history.  Crowns  of  roses  fade — crowns  of 
thorns  endure.  Calvaries  and  crucifixions  take  deepest  hold  of  human- 
ity— the  triumphs  of  might  are  transient — they  pass  and  are  forgot- 
ten— the  sufferings  of  right  are  graven  deepest  on  the  chronicle  of 
nations.” 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/americawarineuroOOskag_O 


EVA  KATHERINE  GIBSON 


The  Women  of  Liege 

By  Eva  Katherine  Gibson. 

The  rose  of  dawn  flashed  red 
On  the  grey  old  Flemish  towers 
When  they  heard  the  thundering  tread 
Of  the  haughty  foeman’s  powers; 

Then  the  bugles  rang  out  clear, 

Sang  shrill  through  the  startled  village. 

“To  arms!  The  foe  is  here! 

And  their  hosts  breathe  war  and  pillage. 

Lo,  they  march  through  our  harvest  fields 
To  crush  fair  France,  our  neighbor; 

To  arms!  brave  Belgian  lads,  bring  gun  and  saber.” 
Oh  the  hurrying  to  and  fro 
In  the  quaint  old  houses: 

Oh  the  thrill  in  the  gallant  hearts 
’Neath  the  rough  blue  blouses. 

Oh  the  kisses  and  swift  farewells 
With  tears  choked  back:  “No  sighing, 

Now  we  fight,”  said  the  women  of  Liege, 

“There’ll  be  time  at  eve  for  crying.” 

In  the  grey  old  factories’  walls 
They  banded,  these  wives  and  mothers, 

To  fight  for  their  native  land 

By  the  side  of  their  gallant  brothers: 

“For  life  without  honor  is  base,” 

Said  the  loyal  women  of  Flanders. 

So  they  welcomed  the  foe  with  flame 
Till  the  arrogant  grim  commanders 
Swore  with  deep  throated  oaths: 

“By  heaven,  they  make  this  a siege! 

They  are  wildcats,  these  women  of  Liege!” 

“Lest  the  rifle,  the  bayonet  blade, 

These  weapons  our  own  hands  made 
Be  turned  ’gainst  our  own  loved  land 
Let  us  make  'tho  we  die,  here  our  stand. 

Courage  my  sisters!  now  aim.” 

And  the  startled  soldiers  fled, 

As  the  cold  blue  steel  flashed  red. 

Love  and  Peace  are  the  rule 
That  women  should  follow,  clearly, 

But  peace  at  the  price  of  right 
May  be  bought  too  dearly, 

For  Love  without  Valor  is  naught 
But  a selfish  clinging 


3 


To  hold  back  the  spirit  of  man 
From  its  brave  up-springing; 

And  the  courage  that  dies  for  Truth, 

In  a cause  so  splendid, 

Will  make  its  full  worth  felt 
’Ere  the  struggle  is  ended. 

You  may  crush  with  your  trampling  hordes, 

All  the  flowers  in  the  blood-stained  grasses 
But  the  souls  of  those  Women  of  Liege 
Will  defy  your  close  packed  masses. 

And  the  heroes  such  mothers  bear, 

’Tho  they  die  they  will  never  falter 
’Till  the  light  of  a new  day  dawn 
Upon  Freedom’s  altars. 

While  the  whole  earth  trembles  and  shakes 
With  the  sound  of  your  guns  grim  roaring, 

There’s  a mightier  power  than  yours 
O’er  the  smoke  of  your  battles  soaring: 

’Tis  the  spirit  of  man  made  free, 

And  it  counsels  wiser 

Than  the  roar  of  your  big  Krupp  guns, 

Or  the  mandate  of  King  or  Kaiser. 

The  political  history  of  Germany,  from  the  accession  of  Frederick 
in  1740  to  the  present  hour,  has  admittedly  no  meaning  unless  it  be 
regarded  as  a movement  towards  the  establishment  of  a world  empire, 
with  the  war  against  England  as  the  necessary  preliminary. 

— Professor  Cramb. 

He  is  a fool,  and  that  nation  is  a fool,  who,  having  the  power  to 
strike  his  enemy  unawares,  does  not  strike  and  strike  his  deadliest. 

— Frederick  the  Great. 

The  state’s  highest  moral  duty  is  to  increase  its  power. 

The  state  is  justified  in  making  conquests  whenever  its  own  advan- 
tage seems  to  require  additional  territory. 

In  fact,  the  state  is  a law  unto  itself.  Weak  nations  have  not  the 
same  right  to  live  as  powerful  and  vigorous  nations. 

— Gen.  von  Bernhardi. 

The  average  German,  whom  the  foreigner  sees,  is  aggressive,  self-as- 
sertive, loud  in  his  manner  and  talk,  inconsiderate,  petty,  pompous, 
dictatorial,  without  humor;  in  a word,  bumptious.  He  has,  in  many 
cases  exceedingly  bad  table  manners  and  an  almost  gross  enjoyment 
of  his  food ; and  he  talks  about  his  ailments  and  his  underwear.  His 
attitude  toward  women,  moreover,  is  likely  to  be  over-gallant  if  he 
knows  them  a little  and  not  too  well,  and  discourteous  or  even  inso- 
lent if  he  is  married  to  them  or  does  not  know  them  at  all. 

— “A  German-American”  in  The  Outlook. 


4 


Only  one  is  master  of  this  country.  That  is  I.  Who  opposes  me,  I shall 
crush  to  pieces.  . . . Sic  volo,  sic  jubeo.  We  Hohenzollerns  take  our 
crown  from  God  alone,  and  to  God  alone  we  are  responsible  in  the  fulfill- 
ment of  duty.  . . . Suprema  lex  regis  voluntas. 

Thanks  to  the  valor  of  my  heroes,  France  has  been  severely  pun- 
ished. Belgium,  which  interfered  with  our  attack,  has  been  added  to 
the  glorious  provinces  of  Germany. 

— Kaiser  William. 

* 

Necessity  is  the  argument  of  tyrants;  it  is  the  creed  of  slaves. 

—William  Pitt. 

It  is  only  the  vulgar  minds  that  mistake  bigness  for  greatness ; for 
greatness  is  of  the  soul,  not  of  the  body.  In  the  judgment  which  his- 
tory will  hereafter  pass  upon  the  forty  centuries  of  recorded  progress 
towards  civilization  that  now  lie  behind  us,  what  are  the  tests  it  will 
apply  to  determine  the  true  greatness  of  a people?  Not  population, 
not  territory,  not  wealth,  not  military  power;  rather  will  history  ask 
what  examples  of  lofty  character  and  unselfish  devotion  to  honor 
and  duty  has  a people  given?  What  has  it  done  to  increase  the  vol- 
ume of  knowledge?  What  thoughts  and  what  ideals  of  permanent 
value  and  unexhausted  fertility  has  it  bequeathed  to  mankind?  What 
works  has  it  produced  in  poetry,  music,  and  other  arts  to  be  an  unfail- 
ing source  of  enjoyment  to  posterity?  The  small  peoples  need  not 
fear  the  application  of  such  tests. 

The  world  advances,  not,  as  the  Bernhardi  school  supposes,  only 
or  even  mainly  by  fighting;  it  advances  mainly  by  thinking  and  by 
the  process  of  reciprocal  teaching  and  learning;  by  the  continuous 
and  unconscious  co-operation  of  all  its  strongest  and  finest  minds. 

— James  Bryce  (Viscount  Bryce). 

We  shall  not  sheathe  the  sword,  which  we  have  not  lightly  drawn,  until 
4*  Belgium  has  recovered  more  than  she  has  sacrificed;  until  France  is 
adequately  secured  against  menace ; until  the  rights  of  the  smaller  nation- 
alities have  been  placed  upon  an  unassailable  foundation,  and  until  the 
military  domination  of  Prussia  is  finally  destroyed. 

— Prime  Minister  Asquith. 

If,  beginning  with  the  eleventh  century,  we  examine  what  has 
happened  in  France  from  one  half  century  to  another,  we  shall  not  fail 
to  perceive,  at  the  end  of  each  of  these  periods,  that  a twofold  revolu- 
tion has  taken  place  in  the  state  of  society.  The  noble  has  gone  down 
on  the  social  ladder,  and  the  commoner  has  gone  up ; the  one  descends 
as  the  other  rises.  Every  half  century  brings  them  nearer  to  each 
other,  and  they  will  soon  meet. 

The  principle  of  ,the  sovereignty  of  the  people,  which  is  always 

5 


to  be  found,  more  or  less,  at  the  bottom  of  almost  all  human  institu- 
tions, generally  remains  there  concealed  from  view. 

In  America,  the  principle  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  people  is  not 
either  barren  or  concealed,  as  it  is  with  some  nations ; it  is  recognized 
by  the  customs  and  proclaimed  by  the  laws;  it  spreads  freely,  and 
arrives  without  impediment  at  its  most  remote  consequences. 

— De  Tocqueville. 

The  influence  over  government  must  be  shared  by  all  the  people. 
If  every  individual  which  composes  their  mass  participates  of  the  ulti- 
mate authority  the  government  will  be  safe. 

In  a government  bottomed  on  the  will  of  all,  the  life  and  liberty  of 
every  individual  citizen  becomes  interesting  to  all. 

— Thomas  Jefferson. 

It  ;is  the  eternal  struggles  between  these  two  principles — right 
and  wrong — throughout  the  world.  They  are  the  two  principles  that 
have  stood  face  to  face  from  the  beginning  of  time ; and  will  ever  con- 
tinue to  struggle.  The  one  is  the  common  right  of  humanity  and  the 
other  the  divine  right  of  kings.  It  is  the  same  principle  in  whatever 
shape  it  develops  itself.  — Abraham  Lincoln. 

War’s  Only  Excuse 

(From  the  “Cours  de  Morales, ” a French  school  book.) 

No!  I cannot  consent  to  be  a murderer  or  to  die  myself  save  for 
a good  that  is  higher  than  life,  save  for  a duty  that  is  more  imperious 
than  the  essential  duty  of  respecting  the  lives  of  others.  Now,  there 
is  one  thing  of  supreme  value,  one  thing  that  is  the  very  foundation 
of  my  moral  duties,  the  very  reason  for  civilization ; it  is  the  right  of 
being  a free  man ; it  is  the  right  of  guarding  intact  my  dignity  as  a 
citizen ; it  is  the  right  to  go  and  come  as  I please  in  my  own  country, 
to  pay  no  tax  save  that  of  my  own  levying,  to  speak  my  own  language 
freely,  to  be  subject  to  the  law  of  no  despot,  man,  or  nation  of  prey. 

A Contrast 

The  Emperor  William  at  Berlin,  March  29,  1901: 

“We  will  be  everywhere  victorious  even  if  we  are  surrounded  by 
enemies  on  all  sides  and  even  if  we  have  to  fight  superior  numbers,  for 
our  most  powerful  ally  is  God,  who,  since  the  time  of  the  Great  Elector 
and  Great  King,  has  always  been  on  our  side.” 

Abraham  Lincoln,  during  the  darkest  hours  of  the  Civil  War,  in 
response  to  the  question  whether  he  was  sure  that  God  was  on  “our 
side” : 

“I  do  not  know;  I have  not  thought  about  that.  But  I am  very 
anxious  to  know  whether  we  are  on  God’s  side.” — The  Outlook. 


6 


Great  Britain  and  the  War* 

(Reprinted  by  permission  of  Mr.  Low.) 

By  A.  Maurice  Low. 

In  a recent  interview  given  by  Count  von  Bernstorff,  the  German 
Ambassador,  he  based  his  defense  of  Germany’s  position  upon  these 
assertions : 

1.  That  Russia  provoked  the  war. 

2.  That  had  Russia  not  been  certain  of  the  support  of  Great  Brit- 
ain she  would  not  have  made  war  upon  Austria. 

3.  That,  Austria  having  been  forced  into  war,  Germany  was  com- 
pelled by  her  treaty  engagements  to  come  to  the  support  of  her  ally. 

4.  That  England,  because  of  her  jealousy  and  enmity  of  Germany, 
encouraged  both  Russia  and  France  to  make  war  on  Austria  and  Ger- 
many, although  England  had  no  cause  to  be  jealous  of  Germany. 

Having  thus  proved  to  his  own  satisfaction  that  Germany  is  the 
helpless  victim  of  British  duplicity  and  Russian  brutality  and  French 
malignity,  Count  Bernstorff  wonders  why  the  preponderating  sym- 
pathy of  America  is  with  England  and  her  Allies  and  against  Germany 
and  Austria. 

Documents  Tell  the  Story 

I shall  not  attempt  to  answer  the  first  assertion,  because  it  is  un- 
necessary. Every  one  who  has  read  the  British  and  German  official 
diplomatic  correspondence  knows  the  truth.  To  that  correspondence 
Count  Bernstorff  can  add  nothing  and  from  it  I can  subtract  nothing. 
That  correspondence  requires  neither  explanation  nor  elucidation.  It 
shows  precisely  what  the  British  government  did  in  its  attempts  to 
prevent  war;  it  shows  what  Count  Bernstorff’s  sovereign  failed  to  do 
to  curb  his  ally.  If  that  correspondence  does  not  convince  the  reader 
certainly  nothing  that  Count  Bernstorff  can  say  will  alter  his  opinion ; 
nothing  that  I might  write  will  influence  any  person’s  calm  judgment. 
Those  telegrams  that  passed  between  ministers  and  ambassadors  in 
the  fateful  days  of  July  are  now  history,  and  to  the  judgment  of  his- 
tory they  may  be  safely  left. 

Count  Bernstorff  asserts  that  if  Russia  had  not  been  certain  of  the 
support  of  England  she  would  not  have  forced  war  upon  Austria.  The 
tu  quoque  is  the  weakest  form  of  argument.  Nevertheless  I feel  justi- 
fied in  asking  if  Austria  had  not  felt  absolutely  certain  of  the  sup- 
port of  Germany  would  she  have  challenged  Russia?  The  answer  is 
obvious.  Single  handed  Austria  is  no  match  for  Russia.  Count  Bern- 

*Reprinted,  in  response  to  many  requests,  from  the  New  York  Herald,  of 
September  21,  1914. 

The  discussion  of  the  so-called  German  “peace  proposals”  has  since  been 
added. 


7 


storff  knows  that;  the  professional  advisers  of  the  Austrian  Emperor 
knew  it.  The  military  resources  of  Russia  are  so  incomparably  supe- 
rior to  those  of  Austria  that  only  a desperate  gambler,  willing  to  put 
his  crown  on  the  table  as  the  stakes,  would  have  risked  the  throw  of 
the  cards.  And  Austria  did  not  have  a free  hand.  She  was  ham- 
pered on  her  flank  by  Servia,  a little  nation,  but  so  powerful  that  Aus- 
tria’s ill-starred  campaign  against  her  has  collapsed.  Austria  could 
not  disguise  the  menace  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina.  She  had  vio- 
lated the  treaty  of  Berlin  when  she  absorbed  them  into  her  empire  in 
pursuance  of  her  “civilizing  mission,”  and  their  people  looked  for  the 
day  when  they  might  throw  off  the  Austrian  yoke. 

But  I do  not  rely  on  assertion.  For  ten  days  prior  to  July  31  Sir 
Edward  Grey,  the  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  had 
labored  day  and  night  to  prevent  war.  On  that  day  he  sent  a telegram 
to  Sir  Edward  Goschen,  the  British  ambassador  in  Berlin,  expressing 
the  hope  that  the  conversations  then  proceeding  between  Austria  and 
Russia  would  lead  to  a satisfactory  result.  The  stumbling  block  hith- 
erto, he  explained,  had  been  Austrian  mistrust  of  Servian  assurances 
and  Russian  mistrust  of  Austrian  intentions  with  regard  to  the  inde- 
pendence and  integrity  of  Servia.  In  order  to  overcome  these  suspi- 
cions Sir  Edward  Grey  suggested  Germany  might  sound  Vienna  and 
he  would  agree  to  sound  St.  Petersburg  whether  it  would  be  possible 
for  the  four  disinterested  powers — Germany,  Italy,  France  and  Great 
Britain — to  offer  to  Austria  that  she  should  obtain  full  satisfaction  of 
her  demands  on  Servia,  provided  they  did  not  impair  Servian  sover- 
eignty and  Servian  integrity,  Austria  already  having  declared  her 
willingness  to  respect  them;  and  Russia  would  be  informed  that  the 
four  disinterested  powers  would  undertake  to  prevent  Austrian  demands 
going  the  length  of  impairing  Servian  sovereignty  and  integrity,  and 
he  added: 

“I  said  to  the  German  ambassador  this  morning  that  if  Germany 
could  get  any  reasonable  proposal  put  forward  which  made  it  clear 
that  Germany  and  Austria  were  striving  to  preserve  European  peace, 
and  that  Russia  and  France  would  be  unreasonable  if  they  rejected  it, 
I would  support  it  at  St.  Petersburg  and  Paris,  and  go  the  length  of 
saying  that  if  Russia  and  France  would  not  accept  it  His  Majesty’s 
government  would  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  the  consequences; 
but  otherwise  I told  the  German  ambassador  that  if  France  became 
involved  we  should  be  drawn  in.” 

In  the  light  of  the  above  can  any  honest  man  say  that  Russia  felt 
certain  of  the  support  of  Great  Britain?  As  a matter  of  fact,  neither 
Russia  nor  France  was  sure  of  what  Great  Britain  would  do,  and  her 
course  was  to  be  governed  solely  by  whether  they  were  “reasonable.” 
What  Sir  Edward  Grey  wanted  above  and  beyond  everything  else 

8 


was  to  preserve  the  peace  of  Europe,  and  to  accomplish  that,  to  save 
the  world  from  the  horrors  it  is  now  experiencing,  he  was  willing  to 
throw  the  great  influence  of  England  on  the  side  of  Germany  and  Aus- 
tria if  they  were  sincerely  working  for  peace  and  to  leave  France  and 
Russia  to  their  fate  if  they  were  unreasonable  and  determined  to  pro- 
voke war. 

Further  confirmation,  if  any  is  needed,  that  neither  France  nor 
Russia  knew  what  England  would  do  and  that  she  did  not  declare 
her  position  until  circumstances  forced  her  to  take  up  arms  is  to  be 
found.  On  that  same  day,  July  31,  the  French  Ambassador  in  London 
was  trying  to  induce  British  support  of  France  in  case  she  was 
attacked  by  Germany  and  was  urging  Sir  Edward  Grey  to  promise 
to  come  to  the  assistance  of  France.  But  Sir  Edward  Grey  would  make 
no  promise.  There  were  circumstances,  he  explained,  that  might  pre- 
vent England  from  remaining  neutral  and  force  her  into  war  as  the 
ally  of  France,  but  he  could  enter  into  no  engagement.  On  August 
1 the  British  ambassador  in  Vienna  telegraphed  to  Sir  Edward  Grey, 
“There  is  great  anxiety  to  know  what  England  will  do/’  Austrian 
anxiety  was  shared  by  Russia.  Thus  as  late  as  the  first  of  August 
neither  of  Britain’s  subsequent  Allies,  Russia  and  France,  nor  one  of 
her  soon  to  be  foes,  Austria,  knew  what  England  would  do. 

And  yet  Count  Bernstorff  says  the  war  would  not  have  happened 
had  not  Russia  been  certain  of  the  support  of  England. 

What  about  Germany?  Did  she  feel  certain  what  England  would 
do?  The  correspondence  is  of  peculiar  interest  as  tending  to  contro- 
vert the  German  Ambassador’s  assertion  that  Germany  was  dragged 
into  war.  From  the  beginning  of  the  critical  relations  between  Aus- 
tria and  Russia,  owing  to  the  despatch  of  the  Austrian  ultimatum  to 
Servia,  Sir  Edward  Grey  had  regarded  the  matter  as  a quarrel  between 
Austria  and  Servia  in  which  the  other  European  Powers  were  not  con- 
cerned. He  knew,  of  course,  of  the  Austn>German  alliance,  as  he 
knew  of  the  Franco-Russian  alliance,  but  he  saw  no  reason  why  those 
alliances  should  be  invoked.  Germany  and  France  he  considered  “dis- 
interested” Powers  and  placed  them  in  the  same  category  as  Italy,  also 
the  ally  of  Germany  and  Austria,  and  England,  neither  the  ally  of  Rus- 
sia or  France,  but  who  might  be  compelled  to  support  France  and 
Russia  under  certain  circumstances.  If  Russia  and  Austria  must  fight, 
Sir  Edward  Grey  held,  it  was  bad  enough,  but  that  was  better  than  to 
see  the  whole  of  Europe  at  war.  Germany  was  not  bound  to  come  to 
the  support  of  Austria  unless  she  was  determined  to  force  France  into 
the  war;  France  need  not  go  to  the  assistance  of  Russia  unless  she  was 
looking  for  a casus  belli  against  Germany. 

France  had  joined  with  England  in  using  her  influence  with  Rus- 

9 


sia  to  keep  the  peace.  France  had  given  no  provocation  to  Germany. 
On  July  29  Sir  Edward  Goschen  telegraphed  to  Sir  Edward  Grey  he 
had  been  invited  that  evening  to  call  upon  the  Chancellor,  who  said 
that  if  Austria  was  attacked  by  Russia  Germany  would  be  compelled 
to  come  to  her  assistance.  Provided  that  the  neutrality  of  Great  Brit- 
ain were  certain,  every  assurance  would  be  given  to  the  British  gov- 
ernment that  Germany  aimed  at  no  territorial  acquisition  at  the  ex- 
pense of  France.  Sir  Edward  Goschen  asked  what  about  the  French 
colonies,  but  the  Chancellor  said  that  he  ‘‘was  unable  to  give  a similar 
undertaking  in  that  respect.” 

As  for  Belgium — whose  neutrality  it  will  be  remembered  Germany 
had  guaranteed — “it  depended  upon  the  action  of  France  what  opera- 
tions Germany  might  be  forced  to  enter  upon  in  Belgium,  but  when  the 
war  was  over  Belgium  integrity  would  be  respected  if  she  had  not 
sided  against  Germany.”  As  a further  bid  for  English  neutrality  the 
Chancellor  added,  with  almost  childlike  simplicity,  as  if  vague  prom- 
ises in  the  future  counted  for  anything  in  an  emergency  so  great,  “he 
had  in  mind  a general  neutrality  agreement  between  England  and  Ger- 
many, though,  of  course,  it  was  at  the  present  moment  too  early  to 
discuss  details,  and  an  assurance  of  British  neutrality  in  the  conflict 
which  the  present  crisis  might  produce  would  enable  him  to  look  for- 
ward to  the  realization  of  his  desire.” 

And  Count  von  Bernstorff  would  ask  the  American  people  to 
believe  that  Germany  was  trying  to  avoid  war  with  France. 

Sir  Edward  Grey’s  reply  was  spirited  and  to  the  point.  There  is 
nothing  finer  in  the  entire  correspondence.  It  exhibits  the  Secretary  of 
State  indignant  at  the  offer  of  a bribe,  but  still  trying  to  preserve 
peace  and  showing  Germany  how  that  could  be  done. 

Sir  Edward  telegraphed  the  next  day  to  the  British  Ambassador : — 

“His  Majesty’s  government  cannot  for  a moment  entertain  the 
Chancellor’s  proposal  that  they  should  bind  themselves  to  neutrality 
on  such  terms. 

“What  he  asks  us  is  in  effect  to  engage  to  stand  by  while  French 
colonies  are  taken  and  France  is  beaten,  so  long  as  Germany  does  not 
take  French  territory  as  distinct  from  the  colonies. 

“From  a material  point  of  view  such  a proposal  is  unacceptable, 
for  France,  without  further  territory  in  Europe  being  taken  from  her, 
could  be  so  crushed  as  to  lose  her  position  as  a great  Power  and 
become  subordinate  to  German  policy. 

“Altogether  apart  from  that,  it  would  be  a disgrace  for  us  to  make 
this  bargain  with  Germany  at  the  expense  of  France,  a disgrace  from 
which  the  good  name  of  this  country  would  never  recover. 

“The  Chancellor  also  in  effect  asks  us  to  bargain  away  whatever 


10 


obligation  of  interest  we  have  as  regards  the  neutrality  of  Belgium. 
We  could  not  entertain  that  bargain,  either.” 

Having  rejected  the  bribe  offered  by  Germany,  having  with  dig- 
nity and  restraint  repudiated  the  suggestion  that  Great  Britain  could 
remain  passive  while  France  was  being  crushed  to  satisfy  the  over- 
weening ambition  of  Germany,  Sir  Edward  Grey  still  showed  that  the 
one  thing  of  all  others  he  desired  was  peace,  and  he  pointed  out  the 
way  by  which  that  object  might  be  attained.  He  instructed  his  Ambas- 
sador to  say  to  the  Chancellor : 

“One  way  of  maintaining  good  relations  between  England  and 
Germany  is  that  they  should  continue  to  work  together  to  preserve  the 
peace  of  Europe.  If  we  succeed  in  this  object  the  mutual  relations  of 
Germany  and  England  will,  I believe,  be,  ipse  facto , improved  and 
strengthened.  For  that  object  His  Majesty’s  government  will  work 
in  that  way  with  all  sincerity  and  good  will.” 

Is  this  the  language  or  the  act  of  a man  trying  to  entice  Russia 
into  making  war  on  Germany? 

Sir  Edward  Grey  was  to  give  still  further  proof  of  his  sincerity 
and  his  almost  fanatical  attachment  to  the  cause  of  peace.  In  that 
same  despatch  to  Sir  Edward  Goschen  he  continued : — 

“And  I will  say  this : — If  the  peace  of  Europe  can  be  preserved 
and  the  present  crisis  safely  passed  my  own  endeavor  will  be  to  pro- 
mote some  arrangement  to  which  Germany  could  be  a party,  by  which 
she  could  be  assured  that  no  aggressive  or  hostile  policy  would  be  pur- 
sued against  her  or  her  allies  by  France,  Russia  and  ourselves,  jointly 
or  separately.” 

Could  anything  be  more  straightforward,  more  binding,  than  this 
voluntary  pledge?  For  years  Germany  has  told  the  world  that  she  was 
not  seeking  war,  that  her  enormous  army  and  her  powerful  navy, 
rapidly  rivaling  that  of  Great  Britain,  were  safeguards  of  peace  and  to 
prevent  France  and  Russia  from  attacking  her.  Sir  Edward  Grey 
bound  himself  to  bring  about  an  arrangement  by  which  Germany  would 
be  assured  she  need  have  no  fear  of  the  hostility  of  France,  Russia  or 
Great  Britain.  Had  Germany  been  sincere  in  her  protestations  that 
she  was  ready  to  defend  herself,  but  reluctant  to  provoke  her  neigh- 
bors, she  would  eagerly  have  accepted  Sir  Edward  Grey’s  offer,  but,  as 
Sir  Edward  Goschen  reported,  the  Chancellor  received  the  communi- 
cation “without  comment.” 

And  Count  von  Bernstorff  imposes  upon  American  intelligence  by 
trying  to  have  it  believed  that  Great  Britain  was  persuading  Russia 
to  go  to  war. 

Germany  Began  the  War. 

Count  von  Bernstorff  asserts  that  Germany  did  not  begin  the  war. 
It  is  not  material  who  strikes  the  first  blow  when  two  men  are  deter- 


ll 


mined  to  quarrel,  but  for  the  vindication  of  history  the  facts  should  not 
be  garbled.  On  August  2,  before  Russia,  France  or  Great  Britain  had 
commited  a single  act  of  hostility  against  Germany,  she  violated  the 
neutrality  of  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Luxemburg.  On  the  preceding  day 
Sir  Edward  Grey  had  telegraphed  Sir  Edward  Goschen  that  the  author- 
ities at  Hamburg  had  forcibly  detained  British  merchant  ships,  and  he 
requested  that  the  German  government  send  immediate  orders  for  the 
release  of  the  vessels,  as  the  effect  on  public  opinion  would  be  deplor- 
able unless  that  was  done.  The  British  government,  he  added,  was 
most  anxious  to  avoid  any  incident  of  an  aggressive  nature,  and  he 
hoped  the  German  government  would  be  equally  careful  not  to  take 
any  step  which  would  make  the  situation  impossible.  These  vessels 
were  released  the  next  day  after  their  cargoes  had  been  forcibly  seized, 
an  act  that  Sir  Edward  Grey  protested  against. 

On  August  3 the  German  government  sent  an  ultimatum  to  Bel- 
gium demanding  free  passage  for  her  troops  and  threatening  to  use 
force  if  the  request  was  refused.  Sir  Edward  Grey  protested  against 
Germany  violating  Belgian  neutrality,  which  Germany,  in  common 
with  England,  had  guaranteed.  On  August  4 the  German  government 
informed  the  Belgian  government  that  it  would  enter  Belgium,  “in 
view  of  the  French  menaces.”  For  the  first  time  Germany  used  the 
fear  of  France  as  a pretext  for  war.  Hitherto  she  had  pretended  Rus- 
sia was  a menace;  now  she  suddenly  discovered  it  was  France  that 
threatened.  On  that  same  day  Sir  Edward  Grey  telegraphed  to  Sir 
Edward  Goschen  that  he  continued  to  receive  numerous  complaints 
from  British  firms  of  the  detention  of  their  ships  at  Hamburg,  Cux- 
haven  and  other  German  ports.  This  action,  Sir  Edward  declared, 
was  totally  unjustifiable  and  in  direct  contravention  of  international 
law  and  of  the  assurances  given  by  the  Imperial  Chancellor. 

Thus  Germany  had  thrice  offended  against  the  law  of  nations  and 
the  moral  law.  She  had  violated  the  neutrality  of  Luxemburg,  whose 
neutrality  she  had  guaranteed.  She  had  violated  the  neutrality  of 
Belgium,  whose  neutrality  she  had  agreed  to  respect.  She  had  seized 
British  vessels  and  their  cargoes  while  Great  Britain  and  Germany 
were  still  at  peace. 

Count  von  Bernstorff,  speaking  as  German  Ambassador  to  the 
United  States,  asserts  that  Germany  did  not  strike  the  first  blow. 

Having  thus  exposed  a few  of  the  errors  into  which  the  German 
Ambassador  has  been  unconsciously  betrayed  in  dealing  with  the 
political  phases  of  this  wanton  war,  attention  may  be  usefully  called  to 
some  of  His  Excellency’s  lapses  when  he  discusses  the  psychology  of 
American  public  sentiment.  He  mournfully  recognizes  the  fact  that 

12 


> 


^c  v xw^r^ 


^ «=^^>wv  ^«^Tbv^>Cv\ 


S«; 


American  sentiment  is  hostile  to  Germany  and  explains  it  by  saying  that 
almost  immediately  after  the  declaration  of  hostilities  England  cut  the 
German  transatlantic  cable,  so  that  the  United  States  should  be  mis- 
informed as  to  the  truth  and  only  news  passing  through  London  and 
Paris  could  reach  America. 

This  is  childish.  The  cable  was  cut  as  a military  measure,  as 
Count  von  Bernstorff  very  well  knows,  and  for  no  other  reason.  The 
American  people  have  the  news  and  the  truth ; they  get  the  news  in 
their  newspapers  and  the  truth  they  can  find  by  reading  the  German 
and  British  White  Papers,  which  have  been  published  in  this  country. 
They  have  heard  the  truth  about  the  destruction  of  Louvain,  the 
slaughter  of  women  and  children  in  Antwerp,  the  scattering  of  mines 
in  the  North  Sea  and  the  tribute  exacted  from  Brussels  and  Liege  in 
defiance  of  the  humane  spirit  of  the  age.  The  German  Ambassador 
ought  not  to  regret  that  the  cutting  of  the  cable  has  made  it  difficult 
for  news  to  reach  America;  rather  he  ought  to  pray  that  other  cables 
may  be  quickly  cut,  so  that  no  further  knowledge  of  German  atrocities 
can  reach  the  United  States. 

Count  von  Bernstorff  professes  not  to  be  able  to  understand  Eng- 
lish enmity  and  cannot  find  any  justification  for  it,  although  he  ac- 
knowledges England  has  long  been  jealous  of  Germany’s  increasing 
prosperity  and  her  growing  navy.  It  is  curious  what  tricks  memory 
plays.  For  years  Germany — not  her  people  or  individuals,  but  her 
officials  and  governing  classes — has  shown  its  dislike  of  England  and 
offensively  rattled  the  sabre  in  the  sound  of  English  ears.  There  was 
the  Kaiser’s  telegram  to  Kruger,  for  instance;  the  obscene  insults  to 
the  late  Queen  during  the  Boer  war;  the  Kaiser’s  sneers  and  slurs  at 
King  Edward;  the  crisis  precipitated  over  Agadir  and  the  revenge  he 
took  in  making  France  dismiss  Delcasse. 

It  was  these  things  and  hundreds  of  others  that  made  it  so  difficult 
for  the  well  wishers  and  friends  of  Germany  in  England — and  I have 
no  apology  to  make  for  counting  myself  as  one  of  them — to  use  their 
influence,  much  or  little  as  the  case  might  be,  to  bring  about  better 
relations  with  Germany.  There  is  no  military  party  in  England.  Eng- 
land, with  the  sole  exception  of  the  United  States,  is  the  one  great 
Power  that  is  not  subordinate  to  the  military.  No  Englishman  wanted 
to  go  to  war  with  Germany.  No  Englishman  could  see  that  there  was 
anything  to  be  gained  by  war  with  Germany.  Time  after  time  Ger- 
many gave  us  provocation  and  we  kept  our  temper.  Those  of  us  who 
believe  that  war  is  usually  a crime,  the  most  insensate  act  nations  can 
commit,  believed  that  the  German  Emperor  was  too  sensible  of  his 
obligations  to  his  people  and  posterity,  too  wise  not  to  recognize  the 
desperate  risk  he  took  in  plunging  Europe  into  war  when  the  honor 
of  his  country  was  not  impugned  nor  national  safety  endangered. 

13 


The  fact  is  the  Kaiser  held  all  too  lightly  the  military  power  of 
Great  Britain.  He  is  an  autocrat,  a militarist,  and  therefore  he  cannot 
understand  the  aspirations  and  the  motives  of  a democracy.  That  a 
country  so  powerful  as  Great  Britain,  with  a world-flung  Empire, 
should  content  itself  with  a standing  army  insignificant  compared  with 
the  millions  Germany  is  able  to  call  to  the  colors;  that  it  should  rely 
for  its  defense  on  volunteers  instead  of  resorting  to  conscription ; that 
the  civil  and  not  the  military  power  should  be  supreme — these  things 
to  the  Kaiser  were  incongruous  and  were  to  be  explained  only  on  the 
theory  that  England  was  a decaying  nation,  that  the  England  of  the 
Napoleonic  wars  had  lost  its  virility,  that,  engrossed  in  money  making 
and  trade,  it  had  become  steeped  in  luxury  and  enjoyment  and  was 
either  too  cowardly  or  too  indifferent  to  fight.  And  accepting  that  as 
a premise,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  he  reached  his  conclusion — England 
would  not  fight ; England  was  not  to  be  feared. 

Part  of  the  Kaiser’s  reasoning  was  correct.  England  does  not  want 
to  fight,  but  the  mistake  the  Kaiser  made  was  in  believing  that  Eng- 
land would  not  fight.  She  will  fight,  as  the  Kaiser  has  learned  to  his 
cost,  when  honor  is  at  stake,  and  when  not  to  fight  would  be,  as  Sir 
Edward  Grey  said,  “a  disgrace  from  which  the  good  name  of  this 
country  would  never  recover.”  She  might  have  escaped  war  had  she 
been  content  to  see  Belgium  outraged  and  the  plighted  fate  of  nations 
mocked  and  the  covenants  between  peoples  broken  by  dismissing  a 
treaty  as  “only  a scrap  of  paper” ; she  could  have  imitated  the  example 
of  Italy  and  found  a pretext  for  deserting  her  allies;  she  might  have 
bought  immunity  by  accepting  the  insincere  promises  of  Germany  and 
claiming  she  had  given  greater  assistance  to  France  through  her 
diplomacy  than  she  could  render  by  force  of  arms.  These  things  Eng- 
land might  have  done.  These  things  England  would  have  done  if  the 
Kaiser’s  estimate  of  the  English  character  had  not  been  founded  on 
false  premises.  But  these  things  England  did  not  do.  Forced  to  fight, 
she  has  fought,  because  there  are  times  when  a nation,  similar  to  an 
individual  who  loves  peace  and  abhors  a brawl,  must  either  defend 
himself  or  in  shame  no  longer  dare  claim  kinship  of  his  fellows. 

It  does  not  become  the  German  Ambassador  to  accuse  England 
of  being  jealous  of  Germany’s  prosperity.  While  Germany  has  built  a 
wall  of  tariffs  against  England,  England  has  thrown  the  doors  to  her 
market  places  wide  open.  She  has  shown  no  hostility  to  the  legend 
“Made  in  Germany.”  A commercial  nation — and  commerce  is  Eng- 
land’s strength — does  not  go  to  war  to  overthrow  competition,  because 
no  one  knows  better  than  the  banker  and  the  merchant  and  the  trader 
that  war  does  not  pay.  Germany  found  in  the  United  Kingdom  and 
the  British  dominions  and  dependencies  her  richest  and  most  profit- 


14 


able  market,  and  through  her  own  folly  Germany  has  lost  a trade  she 
can  never  recover. 

In  two  weeks  after  the  declaration  of  war  the  German  merchant 
marine,  the  pride  of  the  Kaiser’s  heart,  had  virtually  disappeared  from 
the  seven  seas.  German  merchant  vessels,  from  the  magnificent  Im- 
perator  and  Vaterland  down  to  the  disreputable  looking  tramps,  all 
the  shipping  that  so  proudly  flew  the  German  flag  on  the  Atlantic  and 
the  Pacific,  on  the  main  travelled  routes  as  well  as  in  remote  places 
where  a cargo  is  to  be  picked  up  or  goods  made  in  Germany  can  find 
a purchaser,  is  either  interned  in  neutral  ports  or  tied  up  in  German 
harbors  or  condemned  as  lawful  prize  by  the  British  courts. 

The  German  navy,  which  was  the  challenge  of  Germany  to  Britain 
on  the  seas,  the  greatest  provocation  one  nation  ever  gave  to  another, 
which  the  German  Emperor  fondly  imagined  would  make  him  as 
supreme  on  the  sea  as  he  imagined  he  was  invincible  on  land,  has 
been  compelled  to  seek  the  security  of  its  fortified  bases.  While  British 
ships  go  about  their  ordinary  business,  while  the  great  transatlantic 
lines  under  the  British  flag  are  running  on  their  regular  schedules, 
while  cargoes  of  foodstuffs  and  other  commodities  are  flowing  in  a 
never  ending  stream  from  American  ports  eastward  and  the  current 
runs  undisturbed  in  the  reverse  direction  and  British  goods  find  their 
accustomed  markets,  Germany  is  beginning  to  feel  the  pinch  of  hun- 
ger, German  industries  are  prostrate,  German  commerce  is  paralyzed. 

It  is  these  things  that  make  Germany  so  bitter  against  England. 
They  explain  why  Count  von  Bernstorff  seeks  to  throw  the  responsi- 
bility upon  England  and  hopes  to  gain  American  sympathy.  He 
frankly  admits  that  he  is  amazed  by  “the  general  hostility  of  the 
American  press.”  The  American  press — and  I think  I speak  with 
exact  knowledge — has  not  been  hostile,  but  it  has  been  just.  It  has 
not  been  partisan,  but  it  has  pronounced  judgment.  On  the  evidence 
submitted  it  has  rendered  decision.  Before  the  great  bar  of  conscience 
the  Kaiser  has  been  brought  to  his  assize.  History  has  rendered  its 
verdict.  Without  cause  he  provoked  a war;  to  gratify  ambition  he 
sowed  desolation.  Little  children  he  has  made  fatherless,  and  brides 
to  mourn  their  husbands.  The  tears  of  the  living  and  the  blood  of  the 
dying  drench  Europe.  His  legions  have  marched,  and  with  them 
have  gone  ruin,  death,  horror.  He  has  spared  neither  young  nor  old. 
He  has  spread  the  torch  and  with  flame  and  sword  devastated  city  and 
plain.  He  has  made  the  world  a house  of  mourning;  he  has  stricken 
down  the  firstborn  and  brought  sorrow  to  the  aged.  He  has  made 
honor  a jest  and  the  word  of  a King  a thing  of  scorn.  He  has  invoked 
the  name  of  God  and  defiled  man  made  in  the  image  of  his  Maker. 
Under  his  iron  heel  he  has  crushed  civilization  and  checked  its 
progress. 


15 


Knowing  the  truth,  it  would  be  amazing  if  the  American  press 
and  the  American  people  were  able  to  withhold  their  sympathy  from 
the  nations  forced  by  Germany  to  defend  themselves. 

Does  Germany  Want  Peace? 

Since  the  above  was  written  there  have  been  numerous  articles  in 
the  newspapers  intimating  that  Germany  was  willing  to  make  peace,  and 
the  German  Ambassador  has  endeavored  to  make  the  American  people 
believe  that  while  Germany  is  ready  to  end  the  war,  Great  Britain  and  her 
Allies  prefer  to  fight  rather  than  to  restore  peace  to  the  world  and  end 
its  toll  of  blood  and  misery. 

On  September  6 Mr.  Oscar  S.  Straus,  a member  of  the  Hague  Per- 
manent Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  came  to  Washington  and  told  Secretary 
Bryan  he  believed  that  the  German  Emperor  would  be  willing  to  con- 
sider terms  of  peace.  Mr.  Straus  had  met  Count  Bernstorff  at  a dinner 
in  New  York,  and  had  been  given  to  understand  by  him  that  Germany 
would  be  glad  to  have  the  United  States  exercise  its  good  offices  to  bring 
hostilities  to  an  end.  Mr.  Straus  asked  the  consent  of  the  German  Am- 
bassador to  repeat  the  conversation  to  Mr.  Bryan,  and  was  permitted 
to  do  so. 

Mr.  Straus  saw  Mr.  Bryan  and  was  authorized  by  him  to  call  on  the 
British  and  French  Ambassadors  and  ascertain  from  them  the  views  of 
their  Governments.  Both  Ambassadors  informed  Mr.  Straus  that  they 
had  received  no  instructions  on  the  subject,  but  they  would  communicate 
any  proposal  made  to  them.  For  the  benefit  of  the  reader  unfamiliar  with 
the  forms  of  diplomacy,  it  should  be  explained  that  an  Ambassador  can- 
not bind  his  Government  without  specific  instructions,  and  can  only  act 
in  accordance  with  the  instructions  he  has  received  from  his  Foreign 
Minister.  The  British  and  French  Ambassadors  informed  Mr.  Straus 
that  their  Governments  desired  peace,  as  they  always  had,  but  it  must  be 
no  temporary  truce;  it  must  be  peace  made  under  such  conditions  that  it 
would  be  a lasting  peace,  and  Great  Britain,  France  and  Russia  could 
feel  certain  they  would  not  again  be  suddenly  attacked. 

Mr.  Bryan  had  in  the  meantime  asked  Count  Bernstorff  to  come  to 
Washington  so  that  he  could  ascertain  whether  he  had  been  authorized 
by  the  German  Emperor  to  seek  the  good  offices  of  the  United  States. 
Count  Bernstorff  admitted  he  had  received  no  instructions.  His  conver- 
sation with  Mr.  Straus  was  based  on  his  own  belief  that  the  German 
Emperor  was  not  adverse  to  peace.  Mr.  Bryan  asked  Count  Bernstorff 
if  he  had  any  objection  to  Mr.  Gerard,  the  American  Ambassador  to 
Germany,  ascertaining  whether  the  German  Government  would  accept 
an  offer  of  mediation  made  through  the  United  States.  To  this  Count 
Bernstorff  assented. 

The  British  and  French  Ambassadors  at  once  communicated  the  sub- 


16 


stance  of  Mr.  Straus’  conversation  to  their  respective  Governments.  Sir 
Edward  Grey,  the  British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  speak- 
ing for  England  as  well  as  her  Allies,  confirmed  in  effect  what  Sir  Cecil 
Spring  Rice,  the  British  Ambassador,  had  informally  said  to  Mr.  Straus. 
It  was  that  Great  Britain  desired  peace,  but  it  must  be  a lasting  peace. 
If  Germany  had  terms  to  offer^that  would  effectually  insure  peace  the 
Allied  Powers  would  receive  and  consider  them. 

Germany  having  taken  the  first  steps  it  was  incumbent  upon  her,  if 
she  was  sincere  and  acting  in  good  faith,  to  make  known  the  terms  she 
proposed.  If  she  was  not  sincere,  if  Count  Bernstorff,  with  or  without 
instructions,  was  simply  “fishing,”  hoping  to  learn  that  the  Allies  were 
discouraged  and  disheartened  and  would  welcome  peace  at  any  price, 
the  purpose  would  have  been  served  and  the  United  States  would  be  told 
that  Germany  had  no  terms  to  offer. 

The  reader  will  be  able  to  form  his  own  conclusions  as  to  Count 
Bernstorff’s  sincerity  and  the  good  faith  of  Germany. 

Mr.  Gerard  in  due  course  saw  the  German  Imperial  Chancellor,  who 
had  the  effrontery — not  to  use  a harsher  word — to  say  that  “the  United 
States  ought  to  get  proposals  of  peace  from  the  Allies.”  When  Mr.  Ger- 
ard’s report  was  made  to  the  President,  Mr.  Wilson  saw  that  it  was 
useless  to  press  the  matter  further. 

If  Germany  had  been  sincere,  if  in  good  faith  she  had  wanted  peace, 
the  Chancellor  would  not  have  banged  the  door  in  the  face  of  the  United 
States. 

It  is  only  necessary  to  say  a few  words  regarding  the  present  posi- 
tion of  Great  Britain  and  her  Allies.  England  desires  peace,  sincerely 
and  ardently  she  longs  for  peace,  but  it  must  be  no  sham  peace,  no  mock- 
ery of  the  word. 

If  ever  a nation  fought  the  battle  of  the  world,  fought  for  liberty  and 
in  the  cause  of  righteousness,  that  nation  is  England.  She  is  today  doing 
what  she  did  a hundred  years  ago  when  she  rid  the  world  of  the  menace 
of  a military  despot  and  saved  Europe  from  coming  under  the  dominion 
of  one  man.  She  stands  today  the  bulwark  against  militarism  and  a mili- 
tary oligarchy.  She  stands  today  for  liberty,  freedom  of  thought  and 
action;  the  subordination  of  the  sword  to  the  rule  of  law.  She  stands 
today  the  champion  of  Democracy,  the  right  of  man  to  be  “sole  sponsor 
of  himself.”  If  she  is  crippled  or  crushed,  the  dam  that  holds  back  mili- 
tarism is  swept  away.  For  many  years  Europe  has  been  an  armed  camp. 
Should  England  cease  to  be  a Great  Power  all  Europe  will  be  divided 
into  two  parts — Germany  and  the  rest,  military  satrapies  governed  by 
an  autocrat  in  Berlin,  arrogating  to  himself  the  divine  right  to  govern. 

There  will  no  longer  be  any  “little  nations,”  Belgium,  Switzerland, 
Holland,  Denmark,  Sweden,  Norway  will  be  robbed  of  their  nationality 

17 


and  independence,  their  national  aspirations,  their  manner  and  customs, 
their  ideals,  their  memories  of  the  past,  their  hopes  of  the  future.  They 
will  be  ground  under  the  iron  'heel  of  Germany,  conquered  provinces,  their 
people  valuable  only  as  increasing  the  power  of  German  military  autoc- 
racy, an  autocracy  that  will  not  be  satisfied  with  having  enslaved  Europe 
but  will  seek  the  conquest  of  other  worlds  so  that  Democracy  may  perish 
from  the  face  of  the  earth  and  absolutism  be  the  creed  of  kings. 

This  war  is  not  of  England’s  seeking.  She  has  been  forced  into  it, 
and  having  been  forced  into  it  she  will  not  relinquish  the  sword  until  it 
can  be  sheathed  with  safety.  Resolutely,  with  grim  determination  the 
British  Empire  is  determined  there  shall  be  an  end  of  militarism.  Too 
long  has  the  world  lain  under  the  grievous  curse  of  its  armed  hosts.  Too 
long  has  the  terror  of  war  threatened.  Too  long  has  the  corruption  of 
the  sword  worked. 

England  has  not  gone  into  this  war  with  a light  heart.  There  are 
today  no  light  hearts  in  England,  in  Scotland,  in  Ireland,  in  any  place 
where  the  British  flag  flies.  But  whatever  the  cost,  whatever  the  sacrifice, 
we  must  see  this  thing  through,  we  must  save  civilization  from  a return 
to  barbarism,  from  the  shame  of  reverting  to  the  day  when  justice  was 
unknown  and  only  strength  was  feared. 

Were  England  to  make  peace  now,  to  make  peace  on  such  terms  as 
the  German  Emperor  would  only  too  willingly  accept,  she  would  be  for- 
ever disgraced  and  deserve  the  contempt  of  all  mankind.  England  has 
taken  upon  herself  a very  solemn  duty — the  preservation  of  the  national 
existence  of  Belgium  against  the  rapacity  of  Germany.  The  most  viru- 
lent enemy  of  England,  of  France,  or  Russia  has  for  Belgium  only  ad- 
miration; profound  admiration  for  her  courage,  profound  pity  for  the 
ruin  and  desolution  that  have  moved  the  compassion  of  the  world. 

Accident  involved  Belgium.  She  was  the  ally  of  none  of  the  com- 
batants. She  was  not  concerned  in  the  jealousies  or  intrigues  of  the 
Powers.  She  had  no  revenge  to  satsify;  no  long  standing  debt  of  hate 
to  settle.  She  offered  no  provocation.  She  was  peacefully  pursuing  her 
own  affairs,  her  people  happy  and  prosperous,  their  safety  assured.  For 
had  not  Germany,  France  and  England  entered  into  a treaty  to  respect 
the  neutrality  of  Belgium? 

The  German  Emperor  had  pledged  his  Kingly  word,  and  he  broke 
it  with  never  a thought  of  shame.  The  quickest  way  to  strike  at  the 
heart  of  France  was  through  Belgium ; Belgium  must  either  allow  her 
territory  to  be  violated  or  she  would  be  crushed.  When  England  re- 
monstrated, when  England  protested  against  the  infraction  of  the 
treaty  guaranteeing  the  neutrality  of  Belgium,  England  was  told  that 
a treaty  was  merely  a scrap  of  paper.  So  lightly  did  the  German 
Emperor  hold  his  honor. 


18 


Gallant  little  Belgium!  To  her  honor  was  more  than  a scrap  of 
paper.  To  her  duty  was  more  than  the  hypocrisy  of  a phrase.  Con- 
fronted with  the  choice  between  safety  bought  at  a price  that  only 
cowards  would  pay  or  freedom  purchased  at  a price  that  might  make 
the  bravest  hesitate,  she  did  not  flinch.  She  would  fight.  She  might 
be  conquered,  but  she  would  not  be  a craven. 

Belgium  must  be  protected ; her  safety  must  be  assured;  she  must 
be  compensated  for  the  wrongs  she  has  suffered;  her  cities  must  be 
rebuilt;  her  starving  and  ruined  people  must  be  helped.  Only  in  one 
way  can  this  be  done — Germany  must  be  deprived  of  her  power  again 
to  outrage  Belgium ; for  all  the  destruction  that  Germany  has  done, 
Germany  must  be  made  to  pay.  It  would  be  a farce  to  rely  on  Ger- 
man “assurances/’  to  place  any  faith  in  a treaty.  Germany  has  shown 
she  has  no  respect  for  treaties.  She  laughs  at  a scrap  of  paper.  All 
that  she  respects  is  force;  to  her  force  is  more  to  be  respected  than 
honor.  To  make  peace  now  would  be  to  hand  over  Belgium,  racked 
and  tortured,  to  the  executioner.  It  would  be  disgraceful.  It  would 
be  a greater  infamy  than  Germany’s  infamous  crime. 

The  present  generation  is  thrilled  when  it  reads  of  battles  and 
great  deeds,  the  warm  blood  of  youth  is  chilled  when,  with  the  ready 
response  of  youth,  it  reads  of  the  deadi  and  dying,  the  horrors  of  the 
battlefield,  but  youth  cannot  grasp  what  it  means  to  a nation  to  be  at 
war.  It  is  the  men  of  a former  generation  who  understand.  They 
know.  They  recall  those  four  long,  agonizing  years,  years  that  tried 
men’s  souls,  that  brought  out  all  that  was  best  and  bravest  in  a peo- 
ple, when  women  with  breaking  hearts  smiled  through  their  tears  and 
companioned  by  death  lost  not  their  courage,  when  men  met  disaster 
bravely  and  defeat  made  them  only  the  more  resolute. 

They  were  fighting  for  a great  cause,  and  it  sustained  them.  The 
same  spirit  animates  England  today. 

I desire  to  correct  the  statement  that  has  so  often  been  made  in 
the  German  press  and  by  Germans  in  high  official  position  that  Eng- 
land wants  to  destroy  Germany.  Nothing  could  be  farther  from  our 
thoughts.  We  have  no  grudge  against  Germany;  we  English  have  no 
dislike  of  the  Germans.  What  we  want  to  destroy  is  German  mili- 
tarism. That  is  the  only  destruction  we  are  determined  to  accomplish. 

Consider  for  a moment.  Does  any  sensible  man  ruthlessly  de- 
stroy his  own  property?  Is  it  not  only  a fool  who  ruins  his  best  cus- 
tomer? Would  it  not  be  the  act  of  a madman  to  make  himself  poorer? 
This  is  the  price  England  will  pay  were  she  so  foolish  to  “destroy” 
Germany.  Englishmen  have  millions  of  pounds  invested  in  German 
enterprises,  and  German  destruction  means  the  loss  of  those  invest- 
ments. Germany  was  England’s  best  customer,  as  England  was  Ger- 

19 


many’s  best  customer,  and  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  England  would 
deliberately  destroy  her  best  market?  Cannot  everyone  see  that  the 
greater  the  prosperity  of  Germany,  the  more  Germany  buys  from  Eng- 
land, the  more  England  will  sell  to  Germany?  Every  ship  Germany 
has  put  on  the  ocean;  every  yard  of  goods  Germany  has  sold  in  South 
America,  in  India,  in  Africa,  in  England;  every  machine  she  has  built, 
every  pound  of  dyestuffs,  every  barrel  of  cement  she  has  made;  every- 
thing that  has  kept  her  factories  and  her  people  profitably  employed  has 
been  an  extension  of  the  world’s  commerce,  has  added  to  the  wealth  of  the 
world,  has  made  it  possible  for  more  people  to  buy  the  things  that 
England  manufactures,  has  made  England  richer. 

What  can  England  make  out  of  this  war?  Nothing,  absolutely 
nothing.  England’s  land  hunger  has  long  been  satisfied,  she  has  cast 
no  covetous  eyes  on  German  colonies.  Were  Germany  to  pay  an  in- 
demnity so  huge  that  it  would  virtually  reduce  her  to  slavery,  the 
millions  would  not  compensate  England  for  all  that  the  war  will  cost 
her,  for  the  loss  of  life,  for  the  misery  of  women,  for  the  tears  of  the 
fatherless,  for  the  dislocation  of  commerce,  for  the  impoverishment 
of  the  whole  world.  And  when  the  world  is  poor  England,  because  of 
her  industrial  and  financial  position,  is  the  chief  sufferer. 

The  German  people  do  not  believe  that  England  seeks  their  de- 
struction, but  German  militarism  must  justify  itself.  Callous  as  the 
ruling  class  of  Germany  has  always  been  to  the  opinion  of  the  world, 
in  this  emergency,  knowing  it  stands  condemned,  it  craves  the  sup- 
port of  the  United  States,  and  in  defense  attributes  to  England  base 
motives. 

We  have  put  on  our  armor.  We  shall  carry  it  through  the  heat  of 
the  day.  Its  burden  is  heavy,  but  we  shall  not  take  it  off  until  men 
again  breathe  free,  no  longer  affrighted  by  the  terror  of  war. 

When  that  day  comes  we  shall  make  peace. 

(Reprinted  by  permission  of  The  Outlook.) 

Germany  Interpreted  by  a German  American 

The  following  article  comes  to  us  from  the  pen  of  an  American  citizen 
of  German  parentage.  An  alumnus  of  a ivell-knozun  Eastern  preparatory 
school  and  a distinguished  graduate  of  Harvard  University , the  writer  is 
as  truly  American  in  his  sympathy  and  understanding  as  any  editor  of 
The  Outlook.  He  is  a man  of  large  imagination  and  spiritual  compre- 
hension. His  interpretation  of  the  attitute  of  the  rest  of  Europe  toward 
Germany  is  one , we  think,  which  will  interest  our  readers  as  much  as  it 
has  interested  the  staff  of  The  Outlook.  This  partially  humorous  yet 
wholly  serious  article  will  explain  to  our  readers  many  of  the  causes  for 
the  acknowledged  unpopularity  of  Germany  among  its  neighbor  nations. 

20 


His  explanation  is  illuminating , the  more  so  since  it  comes  from  one  who 
is  German  by  descent  and  German  in  his  sympathies.  Nevertheless,  The 
Outlook  still  maintains  that  fire  and  steel  are  not  the  means  wherewith 
to  make  old  foes  into  new  friends. — The  Editors. 

There  are  causes  and  causes  behind  the  great  war  that  is  going  on  in 
Europe  at  this  moment,  and  the  catch-phrases  the  diplomatists  toss  hither 
and  back — Slavic  peril,  Teuton  arrogance,  English  greed — do  not  tell  the 
whole  story.  Nor  is  it  entirely  safe  to  raise  one’s  hand  in  holy  horror  to 
the  awful  effects  of  monarchism  and  to  blame  unreservedly  the  Kaiser 
for  the  cataclysm.  There  are  causes  less  obvious,  but  no  less  real  and 
scarcely  less  important. 

One  of  these  is  the  German’s  resentment  against  the  unfriendly  atti- 
tude his  fellow-Europeans  have  held  toward  him  for  decades ; an  attitude 
originating  in  a feeling  of  social  superiority  and  exhibiting  itself  in  sus- 
picion and  mistrust.  This  attitude  is  prevalent  in  Europe.  I am  in- 
formed that  it  is  not  unknown  in  Asia.  I know  by  personal  experience 
that  even  here  in  America — years  ago,  perhaps,  more  than  to-day — it 
has  in  its  lighter  phases  been  widespread.  I myself  was  brought  up  in 
this  country;  and  I shall  not  forget  the  scorn  that  was  visited  upon  me 
because  I was  a “Dutchman”  by  blood.  Like  the  Teuton  that  I was,  I 
took  those  attacks  very  seriously  and  tried  to  explain,  quite  without  com- 
prehension of  the  comic  values  of  the  situation,  that  I was  German  and 
not  Dutch.  That  made  matters  rather  worse.  I had  friends  of  my  own 
nationality,  and  I heard  them  scoffingly  referred  to  as  Dutchmen.  I 
heard  the  butcher  and  grocer  also  called  Dutchmen  in  a tone  of  voice 
meant  to  reproach.  We  were  all  lumped  together,  fair  game  for  all.  I 
tried  to  forget  all  I knew  of  the  German  language,  because  it  seemed  to 
me  to  have  some  sort  of  shame  connected  with  it;  and  only  the  heroic 
endeavors  of  my  father  and  mother  balked  me  in  this.  As  I grew  older 
and  less  obviously  German  in  manner  and  mode  of  thought,  I heard  less 
of  the  taunt  Dutchman,  but  became  aware  with  a shock  that  a great  many 
estimable  people  considered  the  German,  on  the  whole,  inferior  socially 
to  the  Anglo-Saxon  or  Latin  of  the  same  group.  It  puzzled  me,  for  in- 
stance, that  a very  noble-spirited  friend  of  mine,  an  American  of  Ger- 
man parentage  like  myself,  should  have  been  shown  the  door  by  the 
father  of  his  lady-love  for  no  reason  other  than  that  he  was  a German. 
The  father  confessed  to  having  a violent  antipathy  to  Germans.  It  puz- 
zled me  also  that  friends  of  my  own,  New  Englanders  of  great  charm 
and  culture,  should  speak  to  Germans  in  general  with  a sweeping  con- 
tempt that  was  almost  disgust.  I went  abroad.  The  French,  I found, 
detested  the  Germans  of  course — remembering  Sedan  and  a few  other 
things,  perhaps  they  had  good  reason ; but  the  Italians  disliked  them  also. 
The  Germans  had  a way,  it  seemed,  of  invading  a perfectly  good  land- 

21 


scape  and  spoiling  it  to  the  Italian  eye.  I met  a physician  and  his  wife 
who  looked,  acted,  and  spoke  English  like  Germans,  and  I took  it  for 
granted  that  they  were.  But  I was  told  indignantly  that  they  were  noth- 
ing of  the  kind.  They  were  Dutch ; and  I was  swiftly  made  aware  of 
the  fact  that  I had  been  disagreeable.  I made  the  same  mistake  with  an 
Austrian,  and  the  Austrian,  too,  set  me  straight  without  mincing  words. 
In  Europe,  as  in  America,  I found  that  the  people  of  other  nations  do  not 
consider  it  quite  good  form  to  be  a German.  You  may  be  an  Italian  or 
a Portuguese  with  impunity,  but  there  is  something  a little  off  color  in 
being  a German.  I resented  this,  and  I believe  that  others  of  German 
blood  have  resented  it  before  and  since. 

There  are,  of  course,  potent  though  superficial  reasons  for  this  gen- 
eral dislike  of  the  German.  The  average  German,  whom  the  foreigner 
sees,  is  aggressive,  self-assertive,  loud  in  his  manner  and  talk,  inconsid- 
erate, petty,  pompous,  dictatorial,  without  humor;  in  a word,  bumptious. 
He  has,  in  many  cases  exceedingly  bad  table  manners  and  an  almost  gross 
enjoyment  of  his  food ; and  he  talks  about  his  ailments  and  his  underwear. 
His  attitude  toward  women,  moreover,  is  likely  to  be  over-gallant  if  he 
knows  them  a little  and  not  too  well,  and  discourteous  or  even  insolent  if 
he  is  married  to  them  or  does  not  know  them  at  all.  He  is  at  his  worst 
at  the  time  when  he  is  most  on  exhibition,  when  he  is  on  this  travels  or 
helping  other  people  to  travel,  as  ticket-chopper  or  custom  official.  The 
average  European,  other  than  German,  coming  in  contact,  sometimes 
rather  violently,  with  the  German  I have  described,  jumps  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  bumptiousness  and  the  occasional  coarseness  are  the  whole 
man,  when  they  are  actually  only  the  veneer.  Your  scoffer,  be  he  French, 
English,  Italian,  or  American,  does  not  as  a rule,  have  time  to  discover 
the  calm-headedness  behind  the  quick-tempered  exterior,  the  incorrupt- 
ible integrity,  the  loyalty  to  family,  to  a cause,  or  to  an  ideal,  the  tender- 
heartedness, the  fine  sentiment,  the  artistic  sensibility.  The  foreigner 
sees  the  bad  manners,  and  declares  that  the  German  is  a boor  and  not  to 
be  reckoned  among  gentlemen. 

The  German  has  felt,  not  the  contempt  perhaps,  but  the  suspicious- 
ness, engendered  by  the  misunderstanding.  He  has  felt  quite  rightly 
that  he  has  no  friends  beyond  his  borders.  He  has  secured  his  place  in 
the  sun  for  himself,  he  has  traded  with  the  ends  of  the  earth ; but  he  has 
made  no  friends.  He  does  not  understand  why  this  should  be  so;  he 
himself  is  unconscious  of  the  superficial  faults  which  seem  to  be  so  an- 
noying to  others.  He  certainly  does  not  realize  that  foreigners  raise 
their  eyebrows  at  the  way  he  devours  his  meals.  All  that  he  knows  is 
that  he  has  no  friends  over  the  border,  that  his  every  move  is  watched 
with  envy  and  mistrust,  and  that  there  is  no  one  to  take  his  part.  The 
German  has  ever  been  honest  and  industrious,  seeking  to  make  his  way 


22 


by  peaceful  means ; and  he  has  been  galled  beyond  endurance  by  an  opposi- 
tion which  he  did  not  guess  was  based  largely  on  a flippant  contempt  for 
his  table  manners. 

This  conviction  of  his  isolation  among  the  peoples  of  Europe,  gained 
from  travel  or  business  association,  achieves  in  the  eyes  of  the  German 
possibly  greater  significance  than  it  deserves  because  it  appears  as  a cor- 
roboration of  what  he  has  learned  at  school.  It  is  a frequently  repeated 
fact  that  Germany  is  geographically  so  situated  that  she  must  look  con- 
stantly to  her  own  protection.  She  must  have  an  army.  To 
have  an  army  she  must  stir  up  patriotism  in  the  people.  And 
so  the  German  is  taught  (much  as  the  American  boy  is  taught 
that  the  British  were  all  very,  very  bad  in  the  Revolution  and  the  Amer- 
icans were  all  very,  very  noble  and  good)  that  the  Russian  is  a wolf  on 
the  east  and  the  Frenchman  a fox  on  the  west;  and  God  knows  the  bug- 
bear “perfidious  Albion”  is  made  out  to  be!  From  his  earliest  childhood 
the  German  is  thus  taught  that  he  is  surrounded  by  enemies.  I remem- 
ber once  arguing  at  a dinner-table  on  the  bank  of  the  Rhine  that  there 
really  did  not  seem  to  be  great  usefulness  in  keeping  alive  the  old  anger 
against  the  French.  “Oh!”  cried  a dear  lady  of  sixty-odd,  flushed  with 
indignation ; “but  the  French  are  our  natural  enemies !” 

This  war,  then,  is,  I believe,  not  the  cold  piece  of  diplomatic  jobbery 
on  the  part  of  the  Kaiser  and  his  advisers  that  the  American  papers 
assert  it  to  be.  The  discrimination,  therefore,  between  the  German  Gov- 
ernment and  the  German  people  which  the  New  York  “Evening  Post,” 
for  instance,  has  made  in  an  editorial  entirely  sympathetic  with  the  aims 
and  ideals  of  the  latter  does  not  seem  to  me  quite  valid.  The  Kaiser,  more- 
over, is  not  quite  as  mediaseval  as  he  sounds.  During  the  succession  of  war 
scares  which  the  past  decade  has  produced  he  has  had  the  opportunity  of 
finding  out  whether  or  not  his  people  stood  behind  him.  I was  in  Ger- 
many during  the  crisis  in  August,  1911.  My  brothers  and  cousins  who 
were  in  the  German  army  and  navy  had  their  marching  orders  in  their 
pockets.  None  of  them  wanted  to  go  to  war,  but  all  felt  that  war  was 
inevitable  sooner  or  later.  A civilian  with  whom  I discussed  the  situation, 
a man  who  happened  to  be  a member  of  the  Prussian  Landtag,  was  bitter 
against  the  Kaiser,  not  at  all  because  he  thought  the  Kaiser  was  rushing 
into  war,  but,  on  the  contrary,  because  he  seemed  to  the  speaker  to  be 
ruining  Germany’s  prestige  right  and  left  by  swallowing  insult  after 
insult  from  France  and  England.  I found  this  point  of  view  supported 
on  many  sides.  The  feeling  against  France  and  England  was  so  intense 
that  I felt  it  must  be  absurdly,  blindly  unjust.  I went  to  England  shortly 
after,  with  my  sympathies,  on  the  whole,  inclining  toward  the  English 
side.  Three  little  incidents  in  quick  succession  showed  me  that  the  feel- 
ing of  the  Germans  that  England  was  bitterly  hostile  to  them  was  not 

23 


without  foundation.  In  a street  in  Kensington  I heard  one  laborer  who 
was  passing  say  bitterly  to  another : “I  hope  we  go  an’  wring  the  bloom- 
in’ livers  out  o’  the  damned  Dutchman!”  A few  days  later  a German 
merchant  who  had  lived  and  worked  in  London  for  forty  years  took  me 
through  his  club  in  the  city.  “We  Germans  are  not  very  popular  is  this 
club,”  he  said.  “If  things  get  any  worse  between  the  nations,  I shall 
have  to  resign.  The  English  resent  the  acceleration  of  business  methods 
which  Germans  have  made  necessary  by  their  competition.  The  English 
like  to  do  business  leisurely.  But  the  efficiency  of  the  German  traders 
the  world  over  has  forced  them  to  realize  that  they  must  either  bestir 
themselves  mightily  or  drop  hopelessly  behind.”  This  attitude  is  not  in- 
consistent with  what  other  nations  have  discovered  concerning  the  Eng- 
lish. They  are,  on  the  whole,  not  very  good  sportsmen. 

The  third  incident  happened  at  a dinner  party  at  Queen’s  Gate.  I 
had  happened  to  mention  that  I thought  it  too  bad  that  the  Germans 
allowed  themselves  to  work  up  such  a war  scare  about  England.  In  his 
reply  my  host  did  not  let  the  fact  that  I was  German  by  blood  interfere 
in  the  least  with  the  expression  of  his  views.  With  flushed  face  and  bitter 
words,  he  blamed  all  his  troubles  and  all  the  troubles  of  England  on 
Germany,  and  especially  on  Germany’s  navy.  He  could  not  see  at  all  that 
Germany  had  a right  to  build  ships  for  her  own  protection  and  for  the 
protection  of  her  growing  colonies.  His  bitterness  was  that  of  the  man 
who  sees  himself  being  beaten  in  a fair  game  and  is  losing  his  nerve. 

Politically,  Germany  was  isolated  by  Edward  VII,  but  socially  the  Ger- 
man people  have  always  been  isolated.  And  the  furor  teutonicus,  to 
which  Dr.  Ernst  Richard  refers  in  a recent  number  of  The  Outlook,  is 
aflame  in  them  now,  rightly  or  wrongly,  because  they  feel  that  they  are 
fighting  men  who  wish  them  ill,  and  fighting  for  their  existence.  “Though 
devils  should  rise  against  us  on  all  sides,”  cried  the  Imperial  Chancellor 
in  a recent  speech,  “still  we  should  fight  to  the  end !”  That  is  the  feeling 
of  the  German:  “There  are  devils  on  all  sides.  Sooner  or  later  they 
must  be  downed.  To-day  is  as  good  as  to-morrow.  Rather  better,  in 
fact.  So  to-day  be  it!” 

The  Dutchman's  back  is  against  the  wall,  just  as  it  used  to  be  in  my 
boyhood  days  in  Brooklyn  years  ago  in  snow-time  when  the  taunting 
Anglo-Saxons  were  after  him. 


24 


The  Vice  Regent  of  God  and  His  Chosen  People 

By  William  H.  Skaggs. 

“One  American’s  Strong  Opinion. 

Address  delivered  in  the  Press  Club  by  William  H.  Skaggs.” 

(Amplified  and  reprinted  in  response  to  requests.) 

William  H.  Skaggs , who  addressed  us  last  Wednesday,  and  whose 
rather  forcible  speech  is  reported  verbatim  in  these  pages,  was  the  first 
native  born  American  to  appear  in  the  course  of  war  talks  now  going  on. 
Whether  he  voiced  the  sentiment  prevailing  among  Americans  or  merely 
his  own  is  not  for  the  Club  to  say.  But  it  can  say  Mr.  Skaggs  knew  his 
own  mind  and  delivered  it  with  engaging  frankness. 

He  was  born  in  Talladega,  Alabama,  and  has  given  much  of  his  time 
to  newspaper  and  magazine  work.  He  is  a lecturer  of  high  repute,  and 
an  earnest  politician. — The  Scoop. 

A cataclysm  has  come  in  the  history  of  civilization  and  the  extended 
sweep  of  this  violent  disturbance  has  shaken  the  foundations  of  Christen- 
dom. We  can  not  be  indifferent  to  the  consequences  of  this  disaster,  nor 
should  we  fail  to  heed  the  warning  of  a life  and  death  struggle  be- 
tween absolutism  and  democracy.  I believe  I am  free  of  race  prejudice, 
so  far  as  any  phase  of  the  present  conflict  is  concerned,  but  my  bring- 
ing up  and  environments  have  made  me  intensely  American.  This 
war  involves  fundamental  issues  vital  to  the  American  people,  and  we 
shall  not  be  able  to  escape  its  influence  on  our  national  life.  It  is  a crisis 
that  calls  for  intense  feeling,  not  only  in  our  sympathy  for  the  peoples 
involved,  but  also  in  our  deep  concern  for  what  may  happen  to  us. 

The  present  world-wide  war  has  unfolded  a state  of  public  opinion 
which  can  not  be  ignored.  Enlightened  public  opinion  in  this  country, 
when  associated  with  virile  appreciation  of  democratic  principles,  is  in 
sympathy  with  the  Allies.  We  have  no  prejudice  against  the  German 
people,  who  are  far  advanced  in  education,  industrial  development  and 
commercial  expansion;  but  their  present  civilization  is  essentially  ma- 
terial and,  from  our  point  of  view,  it  is  lacking  in  that  ethical  culture 
which  develops  a proper  appreciation  of  the  higher  ideals  of  American 
institutions. 

We  have  in  this  country  good  people  from  every  civilized  race  and 
nation  of  the  world.  Our  country  has  been  a cave  of  Adullam  for  the 
poor  and  oppressed  of  all  races.  Among  other  good  citizens  of  foreign 
birth,  we  have  many  able,  worthy  and  useful  men  and  women  from  Ger- 
many. We  have  no  prejudice  against  these  citizens  of  German  lineage, 
but  we  can  not  be  good  Americans  and  remain  silent  in  the  face  of  this 
appalling  crisis.  The  neutrality  of  this  nation  need  not  suppress  the 
noblest  impulses  of  its  citizens.  Our  president  has  wisely  and  properly 

25 


proclaimed  the  neutrality  of  this  nation,  and  in  this  policy  he  has  the  sup- 
port of  the  people;  he  has,  also,  with  equal  discretion  and  propriety, 
received  a commission  from  one  of  the  belligerents. 

Immediately  following  presentation  of  the  Belgian  Commission  at 
the  White  House,  Mr.  Brand,  of  Chicago,  publisher  of  the  Staats-Zeitung, 
appeared  in  Washington  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  to  the  president  a 
petition  signed  by  German-American  citizens  of  Wisconsin,  Illinois  and 
Indiana.  The  president  decided  not  to  receive  Mr.  Brand,  his  delegation 
and  petition.  The  president  was  right,  and  all  good  Americans,  regard- 
less of  party  affiliation,  will  sustain  him.  At  the  beginning  of  this  war, 
President  Wilson  expressed  his  opinion  of  hyphenated  Americans,  and  he 
has  been  sincere  and  delicately  diplomatic  in  his  neutrality.  President 
Wilson  was  a historian  before  he  was  a publicist,  and  his  scholarly  attain- 
ments have  fitted  him  for  a very  responsible  position  in  the  present  inter- 
national crisis.  One  need  not  be  a constituent  of  the  president  in  order  to 
give  him  full  credit  for  his  wise  and  patriotic  policy  under  a delicate 
situation  in  our  foreign  relations. 

“This  war  is  no  accident,  but  an  inevitable  result  of  long  incuba- 
tion ; inevitable  as  the  cataclysms  that  sweep  away  the  monstrous 
births  of  primeval  nature.”  It  is  a mighty  convulsion  in  political 
and  social  science,  a struggle  between  medievalism  and  modern  civil- 
ization ; in  the  end,  civilization,  with  its  modern  concept  of  higher 
social  and  political  ideals,  will  triumph.  This  is  not  a race  war.  An 
attempt  to  becloud  the  issue  by  alleging  probable  danger  of  the 
“Slavic  Peril”  in  Europe  and  the  “Yellow  Peril”  in  this  country  has 
misled  nobody  of  ordinary  intelligence. 

German  deeds  belie  German  words.  Moreover,  there  have  been 
so  many  conflicting  and  contradictory  statements  from  high  authori- 
ties, the  world  has  no  confidence  in  any  statements  made  by  the 
German  government  touching  its  purposes  and  policies.  At  the 
beginning  of  this  war,  the  Imperial  German  Chancellor  stated  that 
their  troops  had  advanced  into  Belgian  territory  and  “the  injustice 
that  we  thereby  committed  we  shall  rectify  as  soon  as  our  military 
object  is  achieved.”  The  German  Emperor  now  declares  that,  “Bel- 
gium, which  interfered  with  our  attack,  has  been  added  to  the  glo- 
rious provinces  of  Germany.”  The  Machiavellian  policies  of  Bis- 
marck are  well  represented  by  the  Imperial  Chancellor ; the  brig- 
andage of  Frederick  the  Great  has  again  added  to  the  “glorious 
provinces  of  Germany.”  The  vandalism  of  Attila  and  the  craftiness 
of  Metternich  continue  to  shape  the  destinies  of  the  German  peoples. 

All  of  this  talk  about  the  so-called  “Slavic  Peril”  presumes  upon 
the  ignorance  of  those  to  whom  the  plea  is  made ; it  is  the  same  old 
German  subterfuge.  “It  is  easy  for  princes,  under  various  specious 
pretenses,  to  defend,  disguise  and  conceal  their  ambitious  desires.” 

26 


Every  branch  of  the  Slavic  race  is  well  represented  in  this  country 
and,  in  the  present  crisis,  they  have  demeaned  themselves  peaceably, 
with  a quiet  dignity  and  unselfish  patriotism  which  has  won  the 
respect  of  the  American  people.  Those  who  could  return  to  their 
fatherland  have  gone  back  to  fight  for  it ; those  who  could  not  return 
have  remained  here  and  gone  about  their  business,  doing  what  they 
could  to  help  the  needy  and  unfortunate  in  their  native  country. 
Unlike  the  German-Americans,  they  have  not  found  it  necessary  to 
make  public  demonstrations,  or  to  annoy  their  neighbors  with  a 
spectacular  display  of  hyphenated  patriotism  and  vulgar  bombast. 

In  the  early  history  of  our  struggles  for  national  existence,  the 
capture  of  Burgoyne  at  Saratoga  was  one  of  the  most  important 
victories  won  by  the  American  revolutionists,  and  it  was  the  strategic 
work  of  a Polish  patriot.  The  fortifications  at  West  Point  were 
constructed  under  the  direction  of  this  Polish  patriot  and  our  colonial 
fathers  were  not  much  perturbed  about  the  “Slavic  Peril”  when  this 
Polish  officer  of  “courage,  modesty  and  sound  judgment”  was  made 
adjutant  to  General  Washington.  We  are  told  by  Bancroft,  “among 
his  latest  official  acts,  Washington  interceded  with  congress  on  be- 
half of  Kosciusko,  pleading  for  him  ‘his  merit  and  services  from  the 
concurrent  testimony  of  all  who  knew  him’ ; and  congress  accordingly 
granted  to  the  Polish  exile,  who  was  to  become  dear  to  many  nations, 
the  brevet  commission  of  brigadier-general.” 

The  Servians,  or  Serbs,  and  all  European  branches  of  the  Slavic 
race,  have  been  intensely  patriotic  and  made  their  place  in  the  his- 
tory of  civilization  by  defending  their  homes  and  their  government. 
For  many  generations,  they  have  stood  on  the  eastern  frontiers  of 
Europe,  defending  western  civilization  against  the  inroads  of  the 
Turks.  While  the  petty  states  of  Germany  held  their  subjects  in 
serfdom,  engaged  in  barbaric  and  fratricidal  strife  among  themselves, 
pliant  tools  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  the  Slavic  races  of  the 
Balkan  States  were  bravely  serving  on  the  outposts  of  civilization. 
Sobieski,  Kosciusko,  and  Kossuth  have  brighter  and  more  memorable 
places  in  history  than  Bahrdt,  Metternich  and  Nietzsche.  Tolstoy 
was  worth  more  to  civilization  and  the  cause  of  humanity  than  Bern- 
hardi,  and  he  will  be  remembered  long  after  Bernhardi  has  been 
forgotten. 

The  racial  history  of  the  Slavic  races  in  the  Balkan  States  can 
be  traced  for  fifteen  hundred  years.  These  people  established  great 
empires.  In  the  language  of  Prof.  Hart,  “The  first  people  who  wrote 
about  the  Germans  found  them  anything  but  unified.  Their  chief 
pursuits  seemed  to  be  drinking  mead  and  fighting  their  neighbors; 
or,  if  there  were  no  neighbors  handy,  fighting  each  other.  The  first 
unifying  principle  came  from  without.”  The  first  “conception  of  one 

27 


king  for  the  Germans,  who  should  at  the  same  time  be  Emperor  of 
the  world,”  came  with  Charlemagne,  the  great  king  of  the  Franks. 
German  history  began  about  the  year  840,  when  the  vast  empire  of 
Charles  the  Great  was  divided  into  three  parts. 

The  Slavic  races  are  not  barbarians,  although  they  are  first 
cousins  to  the  Germans,  who  have  Tartar  blood  in  their  veins.  The 
Huns  were  Tartars,  and  after  they  overran  central  Europe,  little  is 
heard  of  them  after  the  death  of  Attila.  They  were  defeated  by  the 
Franks  on  the  border-land  of  the  Germans  and  then  “assimilated 
themselves  to  the  populations  of  their  environments.”  They  were  ab- 
sorbed by  the  Germans,  hence  the  evidence  of  the  Tartar  spirit  in  the 
philosophy  of  the  German  rationalist  and  militarist  and  the  policies  of 
German  rulers.  This  tainted  blood  of  the  German  rulers  has  been 
observed  not  only  in  the  Hohenzollern  dynasty  but  also  in  other  ruling 
families  of  the  German  states  who  have  intermarried  with  reigning 
families  of  other  nations.  German  kings  of  England,  the  Hanover 
dynasty,  prior  to  the  reign  of  Victoria,  were  reactionary  and  cor- 
rupt. Catherine  the  Great,  Empress  of  Russia,  was  a German  and  a 
very  remarkable  woman,  one  of  the  greatest  rulers  of  modern  times 
and  one  of  the  most  immoral  and  infamous.  She  was  a friend  of 
Voltaire  and  cultivated  French  thinkers.  The  physical  and  moral 
degeneracy  of  German  rulers  has  brought  untold  trouble  and  suffer- 
ing on  Europe.  The  present  German  Emperor  talks  like  a madman. 
Bismarck  taught  him  to  hate  England  and  everything  English,  in- 
cluding his  mother.  He  is  the  most  arrogant,  blatant  and  vicious 
sovereign  the  world  has  known  for  many  years.  Of  very  ordinary 
attainments,  if  he  were  not  ruler  of  a great  empire,  he  would  be  re- 
garded as  a very  bumptious,  commonplace  charlatan. 

It  was  the  Slavic  stock  that  saved  Germany  from  Ottoman  con- 
quest and  it  is  the  Slavic  stock  which  has  now  joined  with  England 
to  save  Belgium  and  France  from  German  conquest.  When  the 
Turks  conquered  Hungary  and  besieged  Vienna  they  were  finally 
repulsed  by  the  Slavic  race.  “It  was  the  Serb  Bakich  who  saved 
Vienna,  says  a Hungarian  historian.”  Sobieski,  John  III,  with  20,000 
Polish  troops,  saved  Vienna  and  prevented  the  Ottomans  from  ravag- 
ing central  Europe.  The  Turkish  forces  were  overwhelmingly  de- 
feated and  driven  back.  Sobieski  was  the  hero  of  Christendom  and 
he  was  one  of  the  greatest  warriors  and  statesmen  of  his  age.  He  was 
received  by  acclaim  by  the  Viennese,  but  Emperor  Leopold  showed 
strange  in  gratitude  in  his  treatment  of  the  deliverer  and  of  the  Polish 
army.  Ingratitude  has  been  one  of  the  prominent  features  of  the 
Hapsburg  family  record.  It  is  one  of  the  ironies  of  history  that  the 
Turks,  who  were  driven  back  from  central  Europe  by  the  Slavic 


28 


races,  should  now  be  the  protege  and  ally  of  the  Austrians  and  Ger- 
mans who  were  saved  from  the  Turks  by  the  Slavs.  Servia  is  fight- 
ing for  national  existence  and  Turkey  has  joined  with  Austria  and 
Germany  to  destroy  the  people  who  saved  Europe  three  hundred 
years  ago. 

Race  prejudice  is  neither  provincial  nor  modern,  but  it  is  supposed 
to  soften  as  civilization  advances.  It  is  true  that  race  prejudice  and 
religious  persecution  grow  less  obstinate  as  we  advance  in  humane  or 
spiritual  development.  These  racial  and  religious  prejudices  are  more 
easily  aroused  when  nations  are  at  war  and  society  is  disturbed  by  the 
most  brutal  passions  of  man.  For  the  purpose  of  hiding  their  own 
sins  and  exposing  the  more  highly  civilized  peoples  to  every  possible 
danger,  the  Germans  have  tried  to  frighten  Europe  with  the  cry  of 
“Slavic  Peril”  and  to  alarm  this  country  with  the  cry  of  “Yellow 
Peril.”  The  habit  of  calling  the  Slavic  races  “Asiatic  barbarians”  has 
a sinister  purpose.  The  Slavs  are  a European  race  and  have  for  cen- 
turies been  fighting  the  Tartars  with  whom  Germany  has  made  an 
offensive  alliance.  If  we  may  judge  a nation  by  words  and  deeds  of 
their  rulers,  civilization  and  human  freedom  are  in  more  danger  from 
the  German  peril  than  the  “Yellow  Peril.” 

From  the  address  of  Prof.  Cho-Yo,  before  the  Press  Club,  I quote 
the  following:  “What  is  the  meaning  of  civilization,  the  word  so  much 
used  from  time  immemorial.  According  to  the  most  ancient  thinkers, 
men  of  wisdom  put  the  moral  or  ethical  or  humanitarian  principle  as 
the  strongest  and  fundamental  basis  of  governing  a community  and 
the  people  to  be  governed.  China  has  been  rich  in  writings,  books, 
poems  and  art  during  4,500  years.  Far  backward  in  point  of  the  war- 
fare weapons — not  in  the  science  of  war.”  Again,  from  this  learned 
Japanese  I quote  the  following  significant  statement:  “The  violation 
of  the  Belgian  neutrality  perfectly  justifies  what  Japan  has  been  con- 
sidering that  Germany  would  be  the  first  to  try  to  disintegrate  China. 

The  ultimatum  sent  to  Germany  in  regard  to  Kiauchao  was  in 
wording,  except  the  proper  names,  exactly  the  same  as  Germany  sent 
to  Japan  after  the  Chinese-Japanese  war.  The  treaty  of  peace  then 
signed  was  a great  international  joke.” 

Authentic  history  of  Japan  begins  A.  D.  552,  when  the  Buddhist 
missionaries  arrived  from  Korea,  who  brought  with  them  “letters,  writ- 
ing, calendars  and  methods  of  keeping  time.”  At  this  period  of  the 
world’s  history  the  Germanic  tribes  were  assimilating  the  Huns  and  rav- 
aging Rome.  German  history  did  not  begin  until  more  than  three  hun- 
dred years  after  Buddhist  missionaries  were  welcomed  in  Japan  “with 
their  letters  and  writings.”  Two  hundred  years  before  Charles  the 
Great  undertook  to  unify  the  Germans,  Kotoku  was  Emperor  of  Japan 


29 


and  “he  was  of  gentle  disposition;  loved  men  of  learning;  made  no  dis- 
tinction of  noble  and  mean,  and  continually  dispensed  beneficent  edicts.,, 

By  way  of  comparison,  consider  these  evidences  of  German  culture  as 
expressed  by  Bernhardi  : 

“The  state  is  justified  in  making  conquests  whenever  its  own  ad- 
vantage seems  to  require  additional  territory.” 

“In  fact,  the  state  is  a law  unto  itself.  Weak  nations  have  not  the 
same  right  to  live  as  powerful  and  vigorous  nations.” 

It  is  of  little  moment  whether  we  judge  Germany  by  her  history 
or  by  her  words  and  deeds  of  the  present  generation;  the  sum  and  sub- 
stance of  it  all  is  the  argument  Thrasymachus,  the  Sophist,  in  Plato’s 
Republic,  that  justice  is  nothing  more  than  the  advantage  of  the  stronger, 
in  other  words,  that  might  is  right.  If  we  compare  Japan’s  record  in 
the  war  with  Russia,  with  Germany’s  record  in  the  present  war,  we  shall 
readily  see  how  vastly  superior  the  Japanese  are  in  all  that  distinguishes 
a highly  civilized  people  from  an  uncivilized  people. 

The  power  of  absolutism  in  Germany  has  been  very  frankly  stated 
by  Prince  Bulow,  late  Chancellor  of  the  German  Empire:  “I  must  lay 
down  most  emphatically  that  the  prerogative  of  the  Emperor’s  personal 
initiative  must  not  be  curtailed,  and  will  not  be  curtailed  by  any  Chan- 
cellor.” Or,  again,  danger  of  the  Tartar  Peril  may  be  found  in  the 
declaration  of  the  German  Kaiser : “Only  one  is  master  of  this  country. 
That  is  I.  Who  opposes  me,  I shall  crush  to  pieces.  . . . Sic  volo,  sic 
jubeo.  . . . We  Hohenzollerns  take  our  crown  from  God  alone,  and 

to  God  alone  we  are  responsible  in  the  fulfilment  of  duty.  Suprema  lex 
regis  voluntas.” 

The  military  object  of  Germany’s  invasion  of  Belgium  has  been 
“achieved”  and  Germany’s  national  obligation  has  been  thrown  away  as 
“a  scrap  of  paper.”  Belgium  has  preserved  her  honor  and  safeguarded 
her  long  established  character  for  courage  and  patriotism.  Germany  has 
temporarily  triumphed  and  the  brave  Belgians  have  paid  the  penalty  of 
their  unfortunate  position  beside  an  assassin,  but  there  will  come  a day  of 
reckoning  when  this  cruel  war  is  over.  Belgium  will  live  again,  honored 
and  respected,  the  world  will  ask  when  shall  such  heroes  live  again,  and 
the  name  of  Belgium  will  be  the  synonym  of  truth  and  virtue  and  honor 
in  all  parts  of  the  world.  History  will  measure  the  responsibility  for  all 
the  suffering,  and  sorrow,  and  humiliation  of  Belgium  and  on  the  es- 
cutcheon of  Germany  there  will  be  a bar  sinister  which  neither  the  Krupp 
guns  nor  the  materialism  of  Nietzsche  will  be  able  to  efface.  The  in- 
defensible attack  on  Servia  has  added  to  the  infamous  record  of  the 
Hapsburgs,  the  cowardly  and  inhuman  invasion  of  Belgium  has  added  to 
the  infamous  record  of  the  Hohenzollerns  and  the  world  is  restless  await- 
ing the  destruction  of  these  monstrous  dynasties. 

The  invasion  of  Belgium,  we  are  told,  was  a military  necessity,  for  no 


30 


cause  except  expediency  of  war,  and  since  Belgium  has  been  occupied  the 
world  is  given  to  understand  that  it  will  be  a part  of  German  territory, 
if  Germany  be  able  to  hold  it.  Indeed,  the  Kaiser  now  advises  his  “dear, 
faithful  soldiers”  that  “Belgium  has  been  added  to  the  glorious  provinces 
of  Germany.”  The  elder  Pitt  said,  “necessity  was  the  argument  of 
tyrants,  it  was  the  creed  of  slaves.” 

The  inhumanity  and  aggressiveness  of  Germany’s  militarism  is 
equaled  only  by  the  insolence  and  stupidity  of  her  diplomacy.  At  the  close 
of  the  war  between  China  and  Japan,  Germany  interfered  with  Japan  in 
the  most  brutal  manner,  sending  to  Japan  the  most  insolent  message  that 
one  sovereign  nation  ever  sent  to  another.  A German  officer  who  accom- 
panied the  Japanese  army,  by  special  courtesy  of  Japan,  secretly  reported 
to  his  government  the  movements  of  the  Japanese  army.  This  incident 
illustrates  the  extent  of  German  espionage  and  the  standard  of  German 
honor. 

German  nationalism  is  new  and  unification  is  not  well  suited  to  the 
customs  and  ideals  of  people  who  have  so  recently  emerged  from  tribal 
communities  in  a state  of  serfdom.  At  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  period, 
there  were  39  governmental  units,  including  four  independent  city  states. 
A German  National  Parliament  was  held  in  1848  for  the  purpose  of  form- 
ing a general  German  constitution,  but  the  undertaking  miscarried.  About 
the  same  time,  a Pan-Slavic  Congress  was  held  at  Prague  for  the  purpose 
of  bringing  together  the  various  Slav  elements  in  the  Austrian  Empire  in 
opposition  to  the  Germans. 

No  progress  was  made  in  the  direction  of  German  unification  until 
after  the  defeat  of  the  Austrians  at  Solferino.  Austrian  prestige  with 
Prussia  vanished  at  Solferino  and  King  William  inaugurated  the  first  con- 
structive movement  for  the  unification  of  Germany  when,  by  disregarding, 
for  the  time  being,  the  Hohenzollern  doctrine  of  divine  right,  he  called 
Bismarck  to  his  support.  Bismarck’s  masterful  mind  fathomed  the  situa- 
tion and  his  constructive  ability  and  iron  will  moulded  Germany  into  a 
union  which  was  greatly  strengthened  by  the  short  war  with  Austria,  in 
1866,  when  Prussia,  with  superior  arms  and  the  superior  strategy  of 
General  von  Moltke,  not  only  defeated  Austria,  but  also  whipped  Saxony, 
Hanover,  Bavaria,  Wurtemburg  and  Hesse  into  line  and  made  them  a part 
of  the  new  North  German  Confederation.  This  new  confederation  was 
formed  in  1867  and  a constitution,  modeled  somewhat  after  the  U.  S. 
constitution,  was  made.  Universal  suffrage  was  established  after  the 
elective  system  of  the  United  States.  The  present  constitution  was  made 
in  1871.  It  is  a written  instrument  and  the  empire  created  by  this  consti- 
tution consists  of  four  kingdoms,  six  grand  duchies,  five  duchies,  seven 
principalities,  three  free  cities  and  one  territory ; all  under  the  presidency 
of  the  King  of  Prussia,  who  bears  the  title  of  German  Emperor.  It  is  not 
a union  of  equals;  certain  members  enjoy  specific  privileges  which  do  not 


31 


belong  to  others.  Prussia  has  the  hereditary  right  to  the  presidency  of  the 
union,  and  her  representation  in  the  Federal  Council  is  large  enough  to 
prevent  changes  in  the  constitution  without  her  consent  and  she  has  the 
casting  vote  in  case  of  a tie. 

German  unification  was  not  complete  until  after  the  war  with  France. 
Realizing  the  weakness  of  Napoleon  III,  Bismarck  grasped  the  moment 
of  opportunity  for  a more  perfect  unification  and  greater  expansion  of  the 
new  German  confederation.  The  suggestion  of  a Hohenzollern  prince 
for  the  Spanish  throne  irritated  France  and  Bismarck  found  the  psycho- 
logical moment  for  his  intrigue  and  cunning.  He  falsified  a report  of  the 
alleged  insult  by  the  French  Ambassador  and  war  was  declared  with 
France,  the  remaining  German  states  were  forced  into  the  war,  Alsace  and 
Lorraine  were  annexed,  and  the  unification  was  completed  when  King 
William  of  Prussia  was  declared  German  Emperor  in  the  great  hall  of  the 
palace  at  Versailles.  The  Holy  Roman  Empire  was  never  so  powerful  as 
the  German  Empire.  The  work  was  well  done.  It  was  the  work  of  a 
master  mind,  such  as  Germany  had  not  produced  before  and  has  not  pro- 
duced since ; it  was  the  work  of  a blood  and  iron  policy,  a magnificent  but 
brutal  beginning  of  militarism,  absolutism  and  conquest,  the  termination 
of  which,  in  the  present  struggle  of  democracy  and  humanity  against 
despotism  and  materialism,  has  appalled  the  civilized  world. 

The  internal  struggles  of  Germany  began  shortly  after  unification, 
but  the  agricultural  class,  the  old  Germany,  the  polite  and  respectable 
Germany,  was  soon  smothered  by  the  industrialism,  materialism,  mili- 
tarism and  coarseness  of  Prussia.  Germany  was  swallowed  up  by  Prussia, 
whose  king  became  the  German  Emperor  and  whose  votes  amount  to  a veto 
on  all  measures  which  the  military  class  and  the  Prussian  dynasty  do  not 
approve. 

German  efficiency  has  been  shown  in  her  military  organization  and 
administration,  in  municipal  administration  and  sanitary  regulation.  Police 
powers  of  a state  can  always  be  administered  more  efficiently  under  mili- 
tary direction.  For  safe-guarding  the  health  of  a community,  in  times  of 
epidemics,  and  maintaining  order  in  times  of  lawless  disturbances,  we 
sometimes  find  it  necessary  to  support  the  police  regulations  with  the 
military.  The  established  militarism  of  Germany  affords  these  permanent 
advantages  in  municipal  regulations,  hence  Germany  has  clean,  healthful 
and  well  ordered  cities. 

Industrialism  has  made  wonderful  progress  in  Germany  during  the 
present  generation,  so  have  materialism  and  militarism;  education  has 
made  wonderful  progress,  illiteracy  has  been  reduced  to  the  minimum,  but 
absolutism  has  made  greater  progress  and  idealism  and  all  things  spiritual 
have  been  reduced  to  a minimum.  The  higher  and  better  impulses  of  the 
human  heart  have  been  subordinated  to  things  practical  and  materialism 
has  eaten  the  heart  out  of  Germany.  To  modern  Germany  idealism  or 

32 


humanity  is  a stumbling  block;  personal  liberty  or  democracy  is  foolish- 
ness. Conquest  and  commerce  are  greater  than  love  and  honor.  They 
occupy  a low  plane  in  civilization  and  their  horizon  is  limited.  If  they 
would  profit  by  the  lessons  of  history,  they  should  recall  that  Carthage 
was  the  greatest  city  of  antiquity  and  the  Phenicians  had  the  most  ex- 
tensive commerce  of  antiquity.  There  is  nothing  left  in  art,  literature  or 
government  to  tell  the  story  of  the  Phenician  colonies;  Grecian  art  and 
literature  have  endured.  There  is  not  a civilized  country  in  the  world 
which  has  not  felt  the  refining  influence  of  Grecian  art  and  literature,  and 
there  is  hardly  one  that  has  not  been  influenced  by  Grecian  philosophy 
and  democracy.  From  their  earliest  history,  the  Greeks  have  been  devoted 
to  constitutional  government  and  popular  rights,  centuries  of  subjection  to 
the  Turks  could  not  destroy  their  ideals  and  patriotism,  and  the  late  social 
and  political  renaissance  of  Greece  has  won  the  admiration  of  the  world. 

History  teaches  us  that  the  greatness  of  a nation  is  not  in  its  popula- 
tion, the  extent  of  its  territory,  its  wealth,  nor  its  military  power.  “Great- 
ness is  of  the  soul,  not  of  the  body” ; it  is  the  spiritual  life,  not  the  evidence 
of  things  material.  There  is  such  a thing  as  national  conscience  and  the 
ethics  and  humanity  of  a nation  are  full  of  potentialities  in  its  political  and 
industrial  life.  There  is  no  administrative  machinery,  no  courts  for  en- 
forcing the  law  of  nations,  and,  until  we  make  further  progress  in  the 
federation  of  nations,  we  must  rely  upon  the  fundamental  principles  of 
justice  and  honor,  supported  by  enlightened  public  opinion.  The  injustice, 
and  inhumanity,  and  the  lawless  cupidity  of  individuals  frequently  escape 
punishment  by  the  courts,  but  the  condemnation  of  public  opinion  is  fre- 
quently more  effective  as  punitive  justice,  and  a more  wholesome  deter- 
rent, than  rigid  enforcement  of  the  written  law.  And  history  teaches  us 
that  nations  also  are  frequently  and  severely  punished  by  this  moral  force 
of  public  opinion;  there  is  such  a thing  as  retributive  justice  in  the  un- 
written law  of  nations.  The  highest  evidence  of  the  moral  progress  of  a 
nation,  and  the  cultured  standard  of  its  peoples,  is  found  not  only  in  a 
keen  regard  for  its  treaty  obligations,  but  also  in  an  equal  regard  for 
human  rights  and  justice. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  was  promulgated  not  only  for  our  own  protec- 
tion, but  more  directly  for  the  protection  and  preservation  of  the  new 
South  American  states.  Our  liberal  treatment  of  Spain  in  the  Treaty  of 
Paris;  our  conduct  towards  Cuba;  our  liberal  treatment  of  China  in  the 
matter  of  the  Boxer  troubles,  and  our  policy  with  Mexico  are  evidences 
of  our  national  conscience.  Japan’s  liberal  treatment  of  Russia  and  her 
high  regard  for  her  treaty  obligations,  her  dignified  conduct  since  she  de- 
feated Russia,  have  won  the  confidence  and  respect  of  the  world.  Russia 
was  deeply  humiliated  and  seriously  checked  in  her  plans  for  territorial 
expansion;  Japan  was  exhilarated,  greatly  extended  her  commerce  and 
acquired  large  territory,  but  her  success  did  not  make  her  inhuman  and 

33 


insolent.  If  the  policy  of  Japan  since  the  war  with  Russia  may  be  taken 
as  evidence  of  the  “Yellow  Peril,”  it  is  a pity  that  this  peril  did  not  infect 
Germany.  Had  the  Japanese  peril  gotten  into  the  head  and  heart  of 
Germany  immediately  following  the  war  with  France,  forty-four  years 
ago,  it  would  have  been  better  for  the  peace  of  the  world,  the  cause  of 
civilization  and  the  honor  of  Germany.  It  has  been  forty-four  years  since 
France  was  humiliated  and  plundered  by  Germany  and  Germany’s  bitter- 
ness and  enmity  towards  the  victim  of  her  intrigue  and  insatiable  rapacity 
has  not  abated.  It  has  been  only  ten  years  since  Japan  and  Russia  were  at 
war;  today  there  is  no  apparent  bitterness  between  these  two  powers  and 
they  are  the  common  allies  of  the  two  most  advanced  nations  of  the  world. 
Our  war  with  Spain  deprived  that  proud  nation  of  its  richest  possessions, 
but  there  is  no  bitterness  or  enmity  between  Spain  and  the  United  States. 
German  writers  sneer  at  us  and  say  our  policy  with  Cuba,  China  and  Mex- 
ico has  been  weak;  in  the  judgment  of  other  civilized  people,  our  policies 
in  these  matters  have  evidenced  a national  consciousness  which  has  ex- 
alted us  in  world  position. 

England  has  many  sins  to  answer  for.  Like  every  other  nation,  Great 
Britain  has  not  always  shown  a scrupulous  regard  for  her  obligations  and 
her  greed  has  sometimes  led  her  too  far,  but  she  stands  before  the  world 
today  with  the  oldest  and  most  honorable  record  as  the  defender  of  human 
rights,  the  champion  of  national  ethics  and  the  conservator  of  democracy 
and  civilization.  It  has  been  England’s  national  virtue  and  England’s 
greatness,  more  than  England’s  commercial  supremacy,  that  has  aroused 
the  hatred  of  Germany.  We  have  read,  when  a clownish  fellow  ap- 
proached Aristides,  not  knowing  him,  asked  that  his  name  be  written  on 
the  sherd  of  ostracism,  Aristides  was  surprised  and  asked  if  he  had  ever 
done  him  any  injury.  “None  at  all,”  said  he,  “neither  know  I the  man; 
but  I am  tired  of  hearing  him  everywhere  called  the  just.”  And  we  have 
been  told  that  the  devil  hates  holy  water,  simply  because  it  is  holy.  Eng- 
land has  other  rivals  for  the  world’s  trade.  America  has  been  a very 
formidable  rival,  and  there  have  been  many  delicate  and  grave  questions, 
involving  our  trade  relations,  which  we  have  been  called  upon  to  settle  with 
England.  Sometimes  we  have  thought  she  was  grasping  and  unreasonable, 
but  for  more  than  one  hundred  years,  we  have  been  able  to  find  a peaceable 
and  honorable  settlement  of  all  our  difficulties. 

We  have  been  told  that  Germany  is  jealous  of  England’s  naval  su- 
premacy, but  we  know  that  England’s  naval  supremacy  existed  before 
Germany  had  emerged  from  the  limitations  of  her  tribal  communities, 
long  before  the  German  people  dreamed  they  were  capable  of  maintaining 
a navy.  France  and  America  are  more  exposed  to  attack  from  the  sea 
than  Germany,  but  neither  of  these  countries  has  gone  into  a state  of 
hysteria  about  the  growth  of  England’s  navy.  Another  ridiculous  and 
undignified  position  taken  by  Germany  is  that  England  is  jealous  of  Ger- 

34 


many’s  trade  expansion.  There  has  been  no  more  occasion  for  England’s 
being  jealous  of  German  trade  than  American  trade,  and  England  has  put 
no  more  stumbling  blocks  in  the  way  of  German  trade  than  she  has  put  in 
the  way  of  American  trade.  America  and  France  have  been  in  active  com- 
petition with  England  in  the  South  American  trade  and  with  English 
colonies.  Since  the  beginning  of  the  present  war,  the  United  States  has 
been  “looking  around  pretty  smartly,”  doing  “her  level  best”  to  pick  up  all 
the  trade  she  can  find.  Systematic  work  has  been  undertaken  by  our 
merchants  and  manufacturers  to  secure  a large  portion  of  the  South 
American  trade  which  has  been  wholly  lost  to  Germany  and  temporarily 
and  partly  lost  to  England  and  France.  We  anticipate  no  war  as  a result 
of  our  merchants  and  manufacturers  seeking  new  fields  for  trade,  and  we 
have  not  heard  that  their  efforts  have  aroused  any  bitterness  in  France 
or  England. 

England  has  not  discriminated  against  German  trade;  she  has  made 
no  effort  to  retard  German  industrial  progress  or  handicap  German  trade. 
In  the  words  of  A.  Maurice  Low,  “While  Germany  has  built  a wall  of 
tariffs  against  England,  England  has  thrown  the  doors  to  her  market 
places  wide  open.  . . . Germany  found  in  the  United  Kingdom  and  the 
British  dominions  and  dependencies  her  richest  and  most  profitable  mar- 
kets, and  through  her  own  folly  Germany  has  lost  a trade  she  can  never 
recover.” 

Germany’s  alarm  about  English  trade  rivalry  was  founded  on  the 
general  moral  law  that  a dishonest  man  hates  an  honest  man.  While 
Germany  has  been  able  to  compete  with  England  in  many  lines  she  has 
not  been  able  to  destroy  confidence  in  English  wares  and  English  integrity. 
Germany’s  methods  do  not  inspire  permanent  confidence.  The  trade  situ- 
ation as  between  the  two  countries  has  been  clearly  stated  by  Prof.  Roland 
G.  Usher,  Professor  of  History,  Washington  University:  “No  small  part 
of  England’s  success  in  international  trade  has  been  the  ability  of  the  Eng- 
lish manufacturers  to  maintain  a standard  that  is  almost  unvarying.  The 
English  products  which  bear  the  great  names  have  been  the  same  for  gen- 
erations, and  the  proprietors  have  never  yielded  to  the  temptation  to  de- 
base the  product  to  increase  the  profit.  They  have  sought  to  increase  profit 
by  the  extension  of  operations  and  the  increased  volume  of  sales.  . . . 
Merchants  in  the  far-off  quarters  of  the  world  know  exactly  what  they 
are  ordering  and  exactly  what  it  will  be  like  when  they  receive  it,  and 
they  are  never  disappointed.” 

F.  von  Bernhardi  writes  of  “the  great  tasks  of  the  present  and 
future  which  Providence  has  set  before  the  German  people  as  the 
greatest  civilized  people  known  to  history.”  The  arrogance  of  the 
German  writers  is  something  unspeakable.  Bernhardi  fails  to  tell  just 
what  these  great  tasks  are  which  Providence  has  set  before  His  chosen 
people,  but  if  we  consult  another  German  authority  we  shall  learn 


35 


more  about  the  elect  people  and  their  tasks.  The  Outlook  of  Aug.  22nd. 
publishes  a very  interesting  article  under  the  title  of  “Germany  In- 
terpreted by  a German-American.”  Referring  to  this  article,  the 
Editors  of  The  Outlook  say : “The  following  article  comes  to  us  from 
the  pen  of  an  American  citizen  of  German  parentage.  An  alumnus  of 
a well-known  eastern  preparatory  school  and  a distinguished  graduate 
of  Harvard  University.”  Among  other  frank  and  interesting  state- 
ments in  this  article,  I find  the  following: 

“There  are,  of  course,  potent  though  superficial  reasons  for  this 
general  dislike  of  the  German.  The  average  German,  whom  the  for- 
eigner sees,  is  aggressive,  self-assertive,  loud  in  his  manner  and  talk, 
inconsiderate,  petty,  pompous,  dictatorial,  without  humor;  in  a word, 
bumptious.  He  has,  in  many  cases,  exceedingly  bad  table  manners 
and  an  almost  gross  enjoyment  of  his  food ; and  he  talks  about  his  ail- 
ments and  his  underwear.  His  attitude  towards  women,  moreover,  is 
likely  to  be  over-gallant  if  he  knows  them  a little  and  not  too  well,  and 
discourteous  or  even  insolent  if  he  is  married  to  them  or  does  not 
know  them  at  all.  He  is  at  his  worst  at  the  time  when  he  is  most  on 
exhibition,  when  he  is  on  his  travels  or  helping  other  people  to  travel, 
as  ticket-chopper  or  custom  official.”  This  is  a graphic  picture  of  the 
chosen  people  of  God,  the  “greatest  civilized  people  known  to  history.” 
We  have  at  least  one  German- American  who  understands  the  situation 
and  has  the  frankness  to  tell  the  truth  in  very  plain  language. 

After  reading  this  perfect  description  of  the  average  German,  we 
can  well  appreciate  the  magnitude  of  the  task  to  which  Providence 
has  set  His  chosen  people.  This  task  is  to  coerce  the  world  into  an 
understanding  and  proper  appreciation  of  the  German  people.  This 
task  is,  indeed,  a mighty  undertaking  which  Providence  has  set  before 
His  people.  The  world  must  learn  to  appreciate  bumptious  people 
who  have  bad  table  manners  and  who  are  insolent  to  their  wives  and 
women  they  do  not  know  very  well.  In  considering  so  serious  a mat- 
ter, we  should  be  neither  facetious  nor  sacrilegious,  but  we  can  hardly 
refrain  from  remarking  that  Providence  has  never  before  imposed  so 
difficult  a task  on  His  elect.  Had  we  not  been  told  that  this  is  a God- 
appointed  task,  we  should  question  the  possibility  of  the  venture  meet- 
ing with  success.  The  people  of  the  allied  nations  are  appalled  at  the 
prospect  when  they  are  further  told  by  this  writer  in  The  Outlook, 
“The  Dutchman’s  back  is  against  the  wall  . . . though  devils  should 

rise  against  us  on  all  sides  . . . still  we  should  fight  to  the  end.”  If 

this  be  the  furor  Teutonicus,  the  ultimatum  and  challenge  to  civiliza- 
tion,— “Then  welcome  be  Cumberland’s  steed  to  the  shock.” 

This  eminent  German-American  further  tells  us,  “politically,  Ger- 
many was  isolated  by  Edward  VII,  but  socially  the  German  people 
have  always  been  isolated.”  When  we  consider  the  late  propaganda 


36 


of  the  German  people,  it  is  not  surprising  that  they  have  been  politi- 
cally isolated,  although  Bernhardi  has  said  that  the  German  people 
are  “the  greatest  civilized  people  known  to  history.”  The  world  is 
deeply  indebted  to  Edward  VII.  He  came  from  the  house  of  Hanover, 
a German  family.  It  took  three  generations  of  English  association  to 
refine  and  anglicize  the  Guelph  family,  but  from  the  beginning  of  the 
reign  of  Victoria  it  has  been  intensely  English.  Edward  VII  was  a 
polished  Englishman,  broad  and  statesmanlike  and,  in  his  efforts  to 
isolate  Germany,  no  doubt  he  recalled  the  policy  and  the  words  of 
Frederick  the  Great  who  said : “He  is  a fool,  and  that  nation  is  a fool, 
who,  having  the  power  to  strike  his  enemy  unawares,  does  not  strike 
and  strike  his  deadliest.” 

Accepting  this  picture  of  German  character,  temperatment  and 
manners,  so  vividly  presented  by  a learned  German-American,  we  are 
not  surprised  to  hear  that  the  German  has  been  always  socially  isolated, 
and  we  shall  not  be  surprised  if  he  should  continue  in  social  isolation. 
If  we  search  for  the  cause  of  his  political  isolation  we  shall  find  it  in 
the  philosophy  of  Nietzsche  and  Bernhardi  and  the  policies  of  Fred- 
erick the  Great  and  Kaiser  William  II.  If  Germany  were  politically 
isolated  by  Edward  VII,  we  know  it  was  not  done  by  force  of  arms, 
but  by  the  inherent  superiority  of  the  people  and  institutions  which 
Edward  VII  represented.  Individuals  sometimes  buy  their  way  into 
polite  society,  but  brigands  have  never  been  able  to  fight  their  way 
into  respectability.  If  bushwhacking  were  the  road  to  social  promi- 
nence the  Apaches  and  Moros  would  be  the  leaders  of  polite  society. 

Modern  German  writers  find  nothing  to  appreciate  in  English 
literature  or  English  statesmanship.  In  the  judgment  of  Treitschke, 
“Macaulay  exhibits  a lack  of  philosophic  culture  that  absolutely 
amazes  us  Germans.  He  says  things  that  with  us  no  student  would 
dare  say.”  Macaulay  was  not  a philosopher  and  as  an  historian  he  was 
partisan ; however,  it  is  not  surprising  that  Germans  who  so  devoutly 
accept  the  doctrine  of  divine  right  should  find  nothing  in  Macaulay's 
History  which  they  can  appreciate.  Nor  is  it  remarkable  that  the 
disciples  of  Nietzsche  should  find  nothing  to  appreciate  in  Macaulay’s 
judgment  of  Milton,  and  the  “lofty  disdain  with  which  he  looked  down 
on  temptations  and  dangers,  the  deadly  hatred  which  he  bore  to  bigots 
and  tyrants,  and  the  faith  which  he  so  sternly  kept  with  his  country 
and  with  his  fame.”  We  could  hardly  expect  the  followers  of  Bern- 
hardi to  appreciate  Macaulay’s  essay  on  John  Bunyan,  and  his  essay 
on  the  Earl  of  Chatham  would  not  interest  the  average  German  who, 
we  are  informed,  “is  petty,  pompous  and  dictatorial.”  When  the  elder 
Pitt,  “the  great  commoner,”  was  pleading  the  cause  of  the  American 
colonists,  when  men,  women  and  children  of  Boston,  “high  and  low, 
rich  and  poor,  joined  in  the  chorus:  Pitt  and  liberty,”  the  petty  states 

37 


of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  were  in  the  embryo  of  nationality  and  the 
German  people  were  listening  to  chickadee  stories  in  the  kindergarten 
of  civilization.  It  has  been  said  that  the  destinies  of  France  “have 
been  moulded  by  men’s  love  for  women,”  and  that  “nature  bred  a type 
of  women  fit  to  mate  with  the  imaginative  man.”  The  brave  and 
beautiful  of  France  are  united  for  self-preservation ; they  stand  at 
Armageddon  to  meet  the  mighty  hordes  of  German  vandals  who  “have 
a gross  enjoyment  of  their  food”  and  who  are  “insolent  to  their  wives 
and  women  they  do  not  know.”  The  world  stands  aghast  at  the  dan- 
gers that  beset  the  French  and  their  institutions.  “In  France,  es- 
pecially, the  centre  of  thought,  enthusiasm,  and  war,  from  the  mighty 
fane  of  Paris  downward,  the  churches  were  dedicated  to  Mary,  and 
the  vow  of  chivalry  bound  the  knight  to  fight  for  God  and  for  his 
lady.”  This  is  the  France  that  has  been  invaded  by  the  vandals  who 
are  “petty,  dictatorial  and  inconsiderate,”  who  are  “insolent  to  their 
wives  and  women  they  do  not  know  and  who  have  a gross  enjoyment 
of  their  food.”  All  lower  animals  appear  to  “have  a gross  enjoyment 
of  their  food.” 

Shall  we  remain  silent  and  indifferent  to  the  dangers  that  beset 
France?  Have  we  forgotten  Lafayette  and  Rochambeau?  Have  we 
forgotten  the  story  of  the  dramatic  scene  when,  with  Franklin  and 
John  Adams,  “Voltaire  was  solemnly  received  by  the  French  Academy 
and  philosophic  France  gave  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  America 
as  its  child  of  adoption”  ? The  historian  says : “Many  causes  com- 
bined to  procure  the  alliance  of  France  and  the  American  republic; 
but  the  force  which  brought  all  influences  harmoniously  together,  over- 
ruling the  timorous  levity  of  Maurepas  and  the  dull  reluctance  of 
Louis  XVI,  was  the  moment  of  intellectual  freedom.  The  spirit  of 
free  inquiry  penetrated  the  Catholic  world  as  it  penetrated  the  Prot- 
estant world.” 

The  world,  and  America  in  particular,  owes  much  to  France. 
She  has  given  freely  of  her  best  blood  for  the  cause  of  humanity  and 
the  wisdom  of  her  statesmen  have  guided  and  directed  all  peoples  in 
search  of  human  liberty.  Her  science  has  mitigated  human  suffering 
and  prolonged  life,  her  art  has  made  the  world  more  beautiful  and 
delightful  to  live  in,  and  her  literature  has  amused  and  entertained, 
and  it  has  instructed  and  mellowed  mankind  in  all  parts  of  the  civil- 
ized world.  Shall  we  here  in  America  surrender  de  Tocqueville  and 
adopt  Bernhardi?  Shall  we  cease  to  tell  our  children  the  story  of 
Danton,  Rouget  de  L’isle  and  Madam  Roland?  Shall  we  no  longer 
arouse  the  idealism  and  quicken  the  lofty  aspiration  of  our  children 
with  Chateaubriand  and  Rousseau?  Shall  we  tell  them  that  Nietzsche 
builded  better  than  Hugo  and  that  Bernhardi  is  greater  than  Thiers? 
Is  the  mighty  War  Lord  of  Germany  a more  learned,  a wiser  or  better 

38 


ruler  than  that  gentle  and  beloved  man  of  the  people,  President  Poin- 
caire  ? 

Are  we  not  in  danger  of  being  drawn  into  this  mighty  maelstrom? 
Have  we  not  had  sufficient  warning?  The  policies  of  Frederick  the 
Great  and  Bismarck  are  a part  of  the  world’s  history.  We  have  seen 
Belgium  struck  down  without  warning,  her  splendid  civilization 
trampled  under  foot  and  her  brave  people  sacrificed  on  the  altar  of 
liberty,  we  have  seen  the  devastation  of  France  where  the  invading 
vandal  has  been  able  to  penetrate  and  the  very  existence  of  this  nation 
at  hazard.  England  and  her  colonies  are  sending  the  flower  of  their 
land  for  the  cause  of  humanity,  Russia  is  advancing,  united  and  with 
promises  of  greater  liberty  to  her  faithful  people,  and  Japan  is  fighting 
in  the  common  cause  of  humanity.  Austria,  Germany  and  Turkey  are 
the  mighty  hordes  arrayed,  today  as  they  have  been  in  the  past, 
against  humanity. 

Shall  we  stand  idle  in  this  wreck  and  ruin  of  civilization,  indiffer- 
ent to  threatened  destruction  of  the  people  who  are  our  kin  and  the 
institutions  from  which  our  civilization  has  been  evolved?  Shall  we 
not  take  heed,  lest  the  only  barrier  between  us  and  the  mighty  sweep 
of  German  vandalism  be  broken  down?  Will  it  be  well  for  us  when 
English  democracy  is  supplanted  by  German  absolutism,  when  the 
beauties  of  English  literature  are  marred  by  German  materialism  and 
the  comfort  of  English  spiritualism  and  associations  give  way  before 
German  coarseness  and  brutality? 

When  George  III  came  to  the  English  throne  he  undertook  to 
restore  absolutism  of  the  Stuarts  with  his  “rotten  borough”  system 
and  other  corrupt  practices.  George  III  was  a stupid  and  vulgar 
German  and  his  methods  were  essentially  Germanic,  his  mental  de- 
rangement was  such  that  he  became  hopelessly  insane.  During  the 
reign  of  George  III,  England  was  not  so  far  advanced  in  democracy, 
nor  so  far  removed  from  the  dogma  of  divine  right,  that  she  could 
grant  the  just  demands  of  the  American  colonies.  But  in  those  days, 
with  a corrupt  and  mediaeval  ruler  on  the  throne,  the  principles  of 
representative  government  were  firmly  established  in  the  English  con- 
stitution, and  in  all  respects  England  was  further  advanced  in  civili- 
zation than  other  nations,  the  will  of  the  sovereign  was  not  the 
sentiment  and  judgment  of  the  people  and  the  people  did  not  hesitate 
to  make  their  wishes  known.  Our  colonial  fathers  were  not  without 
friends  at  court  and,  not  only  America,  but  the  world  owes  a great 
debt  to  England’s  greatest  statemen,  Pitt,  Burke,  and  others  who  so 
ably  and  fearlessly  advocated  the  cause  of  democracy.  Shall  we  for- 
get the  people  who  have  been  the  conservators  of  human  liberty,  who 
from  the  Magna  Charta  to  the  Home  Rule  Bill,  have  steadily  ad- 
vanced in  the  cause  of  representative  government  and  civilization? 


39 


For  more  than  two  hundred  years,  the  principles  of  representative 
government  have  followed  the  English  flag.  Wherever  the  English 
flag  has  appeared,  the  principles  of  representative  government  have 
taken  root  and  while  the  growth  has  been  slow  it  has  never  been  up- 
rooted where  the  British  flag  remained.  Every  period  of  English 
history,  from  Milton  and  Cromwell,  Hampden  and  Bunyan,  to  Lloyd 
George,  Churchill,  Asquith,  Grey,  Roberts  and  Kitchener,  and  other 
great  leaders  who  are  today  standing  for  humanity,  has  been  filled 
with  words  and  deeds  which  have  been  an  incentive  to  the  youth  of 
this  country,  a solace  to  patriots  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  The  poor 
and  oppressed,  the  unfortunate  and  needy,  from  famished  India,  deso- 
late Africa,  from  oppressed  Germany  and  the  far  East,  have  turned  to 
England  for  comfort  and  help;  and  the  persecuted  of  all  races  have 
found  asylum  in  England  where  they  were  secure  in  life  and  liberty. 

In  words  and  deeds  the  English  people  have  shown  their  sympa- 
thy for  the  oppressed  of  all  races  and  during  many  years  they  have 
given  protection  and  material  aid  to  those  engaged  in  democratic 
struggles  for  humanity.  To  the  Balkan  States  and  Greece  they  have 
extended  a helping  hand,  and  the  stand  which  Great  Britain  took 
under  Lord  Palmerston  was  in  sympathy  with  the  Italian  people  in 
their  struggle  for  liberty  and  enabled  Cavour  to  drive  the  Austrians 
from  Italy.  England  opposed  the  war  of  Austria  and  Prussia  against 
Denmark  in  1864  and  the  English  people  have  been  sincerely  sympa- 
thetic with  democratic  struggles  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  For  more 
than  two  hundred  years  Great  Britain  has  sheltered  Christendom. 
Shall  we  see  this  “lofty  tree,  under  whose  shade  the  nations  of  the 
earth  have  reposed,  deprived  of  its  branches,  and  the  sapless  trunk 
left  to  wither  on  the  ground”  ? 

This  war  is  a willful  and  premeditated  attack  on  democratic  in- 
stitutions of  the  most  highly  cultivated  races  in  every  part  of  the  world. 
Germany  has  been  flaunting  her  military  for  a generation  and,  all 
along,  she  has  been  arrogant  and  bumptious;  it  has  been  offensive 
and  dangerous,  and  civilization  has  grown  tired  of  the  strain.  Austria 
is  archaic  and  effete.  The  hope  of  civilization  is  that  this  mighty  struggle 
will  end  in  the  annihilation  of  the  Hapsburg  and  Hohenzollern  dynas- 
ties, and  that  the  unfortunate  subjects  of  those  autocracies  will  be  able 
to  establish  something  in  the  form  of  a constitutional  government  by 
the  people. 

Neither  the  Austro-Hungarian,  nor  the  German  Empire,  repre- 
sents anything  in  its  civic  or  political  code  which  appeals  to  the  ideals 
of  the  American  people.  The  house  of  Hapsburg  has  been  a most  per- 
sistent and  merciless  enemy  of  republican  institutions.  Its  history,  for 
seven  centuries,  has  been  a tragic  story  of  continuing  and  aggressive 
warfare  against  political  liberty  and  civic  uplift  of  the  people;  it  has 

40 


fought  every  reform  and  every  democratic  movement  in  Europe  since 
the  twelfth  century.  The  history  of  the  Hohenzollern  family  has  been 
but  little  better  than  the  Hapsburg.  If  anyone  doubt  the  dogmatic 
superstition  and  dangerous  policies  of  the  present  head  of  the  Hoh- 
enzollern family,  let  him  read  these  words,  spoken  by  the  Kaiser  to 
his  soldiers:  “Remember  that  the  German  people  are  the  chosen  of 
God.  On  me,  as  German  Emperor,  the  spirit  of  God  has  descended. 
I am  His  weapon,  His  sword  and  His  vice  regent.  Woe  to  the  diso- 
bedient, death  to  the  cowards  and  unbelievers.” 

Is  this  the  dogma  of  the  German  people,  the  shibboleth  of  the 
German  army?  We  must  so  regard  it  because  it  is  the  dictum  of  Ger- 
man lordship  and  we  find  it  written  in  blood  where  the  German  army 
has  invaded  Belgium.  It  is  difficult  for  an  American  citizen  of  ordi- 
nary intelligence  to  comprehend  the  words  of  the  German  kaiser,  and 
we  can  hardly  believe  the  evidence  which  has  been  furnished  in  sup- 
port of  the  charges  which  have  been  made  against  the  German  army. 
We  are  told  that  the  Kaiser  is  greatly  admired  and  beloved  by  his 
people.  His  words  and  his  deeds  are  before  us  and  there  is  no  con- 
flict in  his  declarations  and  his  acts. 

His  words  may  be  the  dogma  of  the  German  war  party.  They 
do  not  represent  the  thought  or  sentiment  of  Kant,  the  great  philoso- 
pher, whose  “fidelity  to  human  freedom  has  never  been  questioned 
and  never  can  be.”  “The  rights  of  man,”  he  said,  “are  dear  to  God, 
are  the  apple  of  the  eye  of  God  on  earth.”  And  the  words  of  the 
Kaiser  are  not  the  thoughts  of  Lessing,  who  said : “The  chief  of  a 
commonwealth,  governing  a free  people  by  their  free  choice,  has  a 
halo  that  never  surrounded  a king.”  And  Herder  said,  “The  boldest, 
most  godlike  thoughts  of  the  human  mind,  the  most  beautiful  and 
greatest  works,  have  been  perfected  in  republics;  not  only  in  an- 
tiquity, but  in  the  mediaeval  and  more  modern  times,  the  best  history, 
the  best  philosophy  of  humanity  and  government,  is  always  republi- 
can ; and  the  republic  exerts  its  influence,  not  by  direct  intervention, 
but  mediately  by  its  mere  existence.”  Klopstock  “beheld  in  the 
American  war  the  inspiration  of  humanity  and  the  dawn  of  an  ap- 
proaching great  day.”  Goethe,  German’s  greatest  writer  and  one  of 
the  greatest  of  the  world,  “classed  the  Boston  tea-party  of  1773  among 
the  prodigious  events  which  stamped  themselves  most  deeply  on  his 
mind  in  childhood.”  He  wished  the  Americans  success,  and  “the  names 
of  Franklin  and  Washington  shone  and  sparkled  in  his  heaven  of  politics 
and  war.”  The  absolutism  and  coarseness  and  brutality  of  the  German 
Kaiser  finds  no  support  in  the  teachings  of  the  truly  great  men  of  Ger- 
many. 

The  doctrine  of  the  German  Emperor  of  today  expresses  the  faith 

41 


and  policies  of  Mohammed  the  Great ; in  fact,  the  language  of  the 
Kaiser  is  substantially  the  words  of  that  mighty  sultan  of  six  hundred 
years  ago.  It  is  the  religion  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  the  fanati- 
cism of  the  dervishes  who  were  destroyed  by  Kitchener  at  Omdurman. 
And  the  military  genius  who  vanquished  the  dervishes  will  be  one 
of  the  potent  agencies  in  ridding  the  world  of  this  German  fanatic. 

A people  who  accept,  and  offer  their  lives  in  defense  of,  such 
dangerous  doctrines  can  not  be  highly  civilized.  But  it  is  the  shib- 
boleth of  the  German  army  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  an  army  fight- 
ing in  such  a campaign  and  under  such  leadership  should  be  easily 
provoked  to  frenzy,  perpetrating  the  most  revolting  cruelties.  No 
American,  to  the  manner  born,  who  retains  a spark  of  virile  patriotism, 
can  give  aid  or  sympathy  to  a people  or  nation  supporting  so  perni- 
cious a doctrine  as  the  Kaiser  has  promulgated.  Nor  can  any  good 
American,  with  any  degree  of  self-respect,  listen  to  the  advocates  of  a 
dogma  which  strikes  at  the  very  foundation  of  American  institutions. 
German  arrogance  and  militarism  have  no  place  in  modern  civiliza- 
tion ; the  blood  and  iron  policy  is  no  less  offensive  to  our  social  insti- 
tutions than  to  our  liberties.  Dollars  and  guns,  which  have  been  so 
extensively  advertised  as  German  policy,  supported  by  Hohenzollern 
fanaticism,  do  not  appeal  to  the  highest  ideals  of  the  American  people. 

The  armed  propagandism  of  the  German  Emperor  is  a menace 
to  the  peace  of  the  world ; a threat  against  democratic  principles  of 
government  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  Against  this  propaganda  of 
divine  right,  with  all  its  consequent  ills,  the  English  speaking  people 
have  been  fighting  since  the  time  of  Cromwell.  The  eloquence  of 
Patrick  Henry,  the  Statute  for  Religious  Freedom  and  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  were  all  directed  against  this  doctrine.  It  is  a 
relic  of  medievalism,  ignorance,  superstition  and  serfdom,  and  its 
last  vestige  of  respectability  vanished  with  the  passing  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire.  Among  many  other  good  things  which  the  French 
Revolution  did  for  the  cause  of  humanity  was  the  complete  annihila- 
tion of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire.  The  last  effort  to  revive  that  ob- 
solete dogmatism  was  a few  weeks  after  Waterloo,  when  the  emperors 
of  Austria,  Russia  and  the  king  of  Prussia  were  at  Paris.  Alexander, 
of  Russia,  “spent  entire  days  at  Paris,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other 
business,  in  mystical  communication  of  sentiments  with  Madame  de 
Krudener,”  a pietist.  The  result  of  the  influence  of  that  fanatic  was 
the  Treaty  of  the  Holy  Alliance.  The  answer  of  the  liberty  loving 
English  speaking  people,  supported  by  Great  Britain,  was  the  Monroe 
Doctrine.  This  Monroe  Doctrine  is  a vital  question  of  American  policy 
today,  and  it  is  opposed  to  German  absolutism  and  present  policy  of 
German  expansion. 


42 


The  situation  in  Europe  has  been  very  clearly  and  phophetically 
stated  by  Winston  Churchill  in  these  words:  “Now  the  impact  is 
on  us.  Our  blood  which  flows  in  your  veins  should  lead  you  to  ex- 
pect that  we  shall  be  stubborn  enough  to  bear  the  impact.  But  if  we 
go  down  and  are  swept  in  ruin  into  the  past,  you  are  the  next. 

“This  war  is  for  us  a war  of  honor,  of  respect  for  obligations, 
into  which  we  have  entered,  and  of  loyalty  towards  friends  in  des- 
perate need.  But  now  that  it  has  begun,  it  has  become  a war  of  self- 
preservation.  The  British  democracy,  with  its  limited  monarchy,  its 
ancient  parliament,  its  ardent  social  and  philanthropic  systems,  is  en- 
gaged for  good  or  for  ill  in  a deadly  grapple  with  the  formidable  might 
of  Prussian  autocratic  rule.” 

Since  the  beginning  of  this  war,  the  press,  in  certain  sections  of 
the  United  States,  largely  under  German-American  influence,  has 
been  crammed  with  German  propagandism.  When  war  was  declared, 
a great  demonstration  was  held  in  Chicago  and  hyphenated  Americans 
sent  expressions  of  sympathy  and  support  to  the  imperial  government 
in  Germany.  Neither  English,  French,  Belgian  or  Russian,  in  the 
United  States  found  it  necessary  or  advisable  to  talk  so  much  or  to 
print  so  much  in  defense  of  the  policies  of  either  of  these  countries. 
The  query  naturally  suggests  itself : Why  have  the  German-Americans 
found  it  necessary  to  talk  so  much  and  publish  so  much  in  defense 
of  a government  the  principles  and  practices  of  which  are  so  danger- 
ous to  American  institutions? 

When  the  reports  of  the  appalling  atrocities  in  Belgium  reached 
this  country,  we  had  another  deluge  of  newspaper  articles  from  Ger- 
man-Americans, who  were  four-thousand  miles  from  where  the  al- 
leged atrocities  occurred.  When  a commission  from  a sovereign  state 
came  to  this  country  they  were  properly  received  by  the  president. 
This  commission  presented  specific  charges,  in  a formal  and  proper 
manner.  German-Americans  who  could  not  be  competent  witnesses, 
simply  because  they  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  the  matter  under 
consideration,  came  forward  with  demands  for  further  hearing.  It 
was  conveniently  arranged  for  lengthy  articles,  from  correspondents 
of  Chicago  papers,  to  appear  in  print  a few  hours  after  the  Belgian 
Commission  had  filed  its  indictments.  These  newspaper  articles  were 
written  by  correspondents  of  intelligence,  experience  and  integrity, 
but  not  one  of  these  articles  contains  a categorical  answer  to  a single 
charge  which  has  been  made.  Neither  of  the  correspondents,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  statement,  had  an  opportunity,  or  did  not  avail  him- 
self of  an  opportunity,  to  investigate  one  of  the  accusations  that  has 
been  made.  These  writers  have  simply  reported  impressions  and 
opinions.  They  have  graphically,  and  in  the  most  fulsome  manner, 


43 


extolled  the  gracious  hospitality  of  the  German  army  officers.  This 
evidence  of  affable  demeanor  and  considerate  attention  to  American 
guests  is  no  answer  to  the  specific  charges.  Moreover,  other  writers 
of  long  experience  and  international  reputation  of  ability  and  integrity, 
have  testified  to  the  evidence  of  cruelty  and  vandalism  which  have 
come  under  their  personal  observation.  Richard  Harding  Davis  was 
an  eye-witness  to  the  razing  of  Louvain.  From  the  pathetic  story  he 
has  told,  I take  the  following: 

“For  two  hours  Thursday  night  I was  in  what  for  600  years 
had  been  the  city  of  Louvain.  The  Germans  were  burning  it  and  to 
hide  their  work  kept  us  locked  in  the  railroad  carriages,  but  the  story 
was  written  against  the  sky  and  was  told  to  us  by  the  German  sol- 
diers, incoherent  with  excess.  We  could  read  it  in  the  faces  of  the 
women  and  children  being  led  to  concentration  camps  to  be  shot.  Like 
flocks  of  sheep,  they  were  rounded  up  and  marched  through  the 
night  to  concentration  camps.  We  were  not  allowed  to  speak  to  any 
citizen  of  Louvain,  but  the  Germans  crowded  the  windows,  boastful, 
gloating,  eager  to  interpret. 

“No  one  defends  the  sniper,  but  because  the  ignorant  Mexicans, 
when  their  city  was  invaded,  fired  upon  our  sailors  we  did  not  destroy 
Vera  Cruz.  Even  had  we  bombarded  Vera  Cruz  money  could  have 
restored  it.  Money  can  not  restore  Louvain  and  its  people’s  handi- 
work belonging  to  the  world.  With  torch  and  dynamite  the  Germans 
have  turned  their  masterpieces  into  ashes  and  all  the  Kaiser’s  horses 
and  all  his  men  can  not  bring  them  back  again.” 

The  Duke  of  Alva,  who  pillaged  Belgium  more  than  three  hun- 
dred years  ago,  came  from  an  illustrious  family  and  was  educated  in 
military  science  and  politics,  with  all  the  accomplishments  of  a Span- 
ish grandee.  His  hospitality  to  Counts  Egmont  and  Hoorne  were 
according  to  the  regal  custom  of  that  period ; the  murder  of  his  guests 
was  according  to  the  cruel  and  cowardly  practices  of  that  ferocious 
and  vindictive  grandee.  The  inhuman  Alva  was  always  debonair,  even 
when  he  directed  the  “Council  of  Blood.”  So  was  Mohammed  II,  a 
man  of  education ; he  spoke  five  languages  fluently  and  was  well 
versed  in  the  natural  sciences  and  fine  arts.  It  is  little  comfort  to  the 
homeless  and  bereaved  of  Belgium  to  learn  that  their  homes  were 
burned  and  their  aged  kin  murdered  under  the  direction  of  German 
army  officers  who  had  been  educated  and  trained  in  the  art  of  enter- 
taining. 

The  world’s  verdict  on  the  bloody  Alva  was  expressed  by  Motley 
in  these  words:  “Such  an  amount  of  stealth  and  ferocity,  of  patient 
vindictiveness,  and  universal  bloodthirstiness  has  never  been  found  in 
a savage  beast  of  the  forest,  and  but  rarely  in  a human  being.”  When 


44 


the  verdict  of  the  world  is  made  up  on  the  record  of  the  war  lord  of 
Germany,  who  calls  himself  the  vice  regent  and  weapon  of  God,  upon 
whom  the  spirit  of  God  has  descended,  he  will  be  placed  in  the  same 
class  of  ferocious  vandals  as  the  Duke  of  Alva.  Attila,  Alva  and  Wil- 
liam II,  of  Germany,  have  been  the  scourge  of  the  Low  Countries. 

The  present  afflictions  of  the  Belgians  are  the  result  of  no  aggres- 
sion, infringement  or  encroachment  on  their  part.  They  are  the 
innocent  victims  sacrificed  in  a ruthless  breach  of  the  most  sacred 
obligation  which  a nation  can  enter  into,  an  obligation  which  has  been 
held  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  a sovereign  state.  Belgium  is  small  in 
area  but  large  in  history.  Caesar  said,  “The  Belgians  are  the  bravest 
of  all,”  and  for  two  thousand  years  they  have  held  an  important  place 
in  history.  They  have  been  thrifty  in  peace  and  brave  in  war  and 
have  made  their  place  in  history.  We  respect  the  Belgians  for  the 
history  they  have  made ; we  deeply  sympathize  with  these  brave  people 
in  their  present  distress  and  bereavement  and  we  honor  them  for  their 
heroic  devotion  to  their  country  and  their  honor.  The  brutal  violation 
of  Belgian  neutrality  will  live  in  history  as  the  most  appalling  crime  of 
the  century. 

The  scene  of  the  present  struggle  in  Europe  was  a great  battle 
field  in  a conflict  between  the  Belgian  and  French  ancestors  and  the 
Huns,  under  the  leadership  of  Attila,  “the  scourge  of  God.”  And  there 
are  several  points  of  striking  similarity,  not  only  in  the  location  of  the 
conflict,  but  also  in  the  avowed  purpose  and  in  the  cruel  practices  of 
the  invading  vandals.  There  is  an  impressive  and  pathetic  similarity 
in  the  vandalism  of  “the  scourge  of  God”  fifteen  hundred  years 
ago,  and  the  vice  regent  and  weapon  of  God  today.  Removed  from 
the  present  environment  of  civilization,  the  vice  regent  of  God  is  the 
twin  brother  of  the  “scourge  of  God.”  A common  Tartar  ancestry 
seems  evident  and  the  anthropologist  could  easily  trace  the  house  of 
Hohenzollern  back  to  the  most  distinguished  king  of  the  Huns. 

There  has  been  no  manifestation  of  prejudice  against  the  German 
people  in  this  country.  They  are  thrifty  and  progressive,  their  educa- 
tional development,  industrial  and  commercial  expansion  and  their  ef- 
ficiency in  administration  are  fully  appreciated.  But  the  people  of  the 
German  Empire  are  the  subjects  of  a bigoted  autocrat  who  has  no 
respect  for  treaty  obligations,  the  law  of  nations,  or  any  other  legal 
or  moral  obligation  which  stands  in  the  way  of  his  aggressive  mili- 
tarism. We  have  sincere  sympathy  for  Germans  in  this  country  who 
have  kin  and  friends  in  the  German  army,  but  we  have  little  charity 
for  those  who  call  themselves  American  citizens  while  they  support 
the  dogmas  and  practices  of  the  German  government.  Those  who  can 
not  support  the  American  government,  who  can  not  be  faithful,  in 


45 


words  and  deeds,  to  our  institutions,  should  return  to  their  native 
country.  The  newspapers  report  that  5,000  German-Americans,  at  a 
meeting  in  New  York,  “hailed  the  day  when  the  German  flag  should 
fly  over  Paris  and  London.”  There  is  no  present  occasion  for  appre- 
hension at  the  prospect  of  the  German  flag  flying  over  Paris  and  Lon- 
don, but  the  suggestion  is  offensive  to  the  American  people.  Hyphen- 
ated Americans  who  would  like  to  see  the  German  flag  flying  over  Paris 
and  London  ought  to  leave  this  country  and  try  to  put  the  flag  where 
they  want  it.  No  patriotic  American  wants  to  see  the  German  flag 
flying  over  Paris  and  London. 

Our  sympathy  with  the  Allies  is  evidence  of  our  faith  in  demo- 
cratic institutions  and  our  desire  to  encourage  and  support  every 
effort  to  establish  and  maintain  republican  form  of  government.  Ger- 
man absolutism  and  militarism  are  a menace  to  the  principles  which 
our  fathers  proclaimed  at  Philadelphia  and  defended  at  Bunker  Hlil 
and  Cowpens.  We  believe  in  democracy;  Bernhardi  says,  “There 
never  have  been,  and  never  will  be,  universal  rights  of  men.”  Eng- 
land, France  and  Belgium  are  fighting  the  battles  of  democracy  and 
civilization,  against  German  teachings  and  German  policies.  When 
our  fathers  established  this  government,  they  abrogated  the  obsolete 
doctrine  of  divine  right  and  the  teachings  of  the  absolutist,  and  in 
place  of  these  despotic  measures  which  had  so  long  oppressed  man- 
kind, they  set  up  the  sovereign  citizen.  Having  successfully  combated 
the  ancient  fetish  of  divine  right,  we  have  turned  our  attention  to  the 
modern  fetish  of  materialism  which  has  eaten  the  soul  of  the  German 
people  and  threatens  the  life  of  this  nation.  With  the  advancing  intel- 
ligence of  our  citizens,  and  a courageous  faith  in  the  potentialities  of 
democracy,  we  hope  to  be  able  to  maintain  the  stability  of  our  govern- 
ment and  to  overcome  the  aggressive  forces  of  materialism. 

German  espionage  obtains  in  every  part  of  this  country,  as  it 
has  in  every  other  country  where  it  has  not  been  suppressed ; it  is  a 
present  peril  which  is  a menace  to  our  peace  and  security.  German 
leagues  in  this  country  are  attacking  our  democratic  system,  ridiculing 
our  Congress  and  directing  the  influence  of  powerful  industrial  combi- 
nations in  support  of  men  and  measures  dangerous  to  our  government. 
German-American  leagues  whose  members  are  American  citizens, 
qualified  electors  who  have  full  protection  of  our  government  and  all 
possible  advantages  of  our  industrial  growth,  are  systematically  direct- 
ing their  efforts  along  lines  that  threaten  the  peace  of  the  nation.  We 
are  not  prepared  to  meet  an  open  foe.  Under  the  blessings  of  peace, 
we  have  not  prepared  for  war.  In  the  present  crisis  we  should  prepare 
for  any  eventualities,  and  we  should  suppress  with  public  opinion,  and 
stronger  measures,  if  any  be  necessary,  this  anti-democratic,  anti- 

46 


American  spirit  which  is  being  used  in  the  interest  of  Germany.  A 
spirit  of  American  patriotism  should  be  aroused  which  will  destroy,  or 
at  least  silence,  our  enemies  within  and  prepare  to  meet  enemies  who 
may  come  from  without.  Let  us  not  feel  too  secure  in  our  liberties 
nor  too  boastful  in  the  potentialities  of  our  vast  resources  and  popula- 
tion. When  Nehemiah  was  rebuilding  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  many 
evil  tidings  came  to  him,  and  many  threats  were  made  by  Sanballat 
and  Tobiah  who  mocked  the  Jews.  “And  it  came  to  pass  from  that 
time  forth,  that  half  of  my  servants  wrought  in  the  work  and  half  of 
them  held  the  spears,  the  shields,  and  the  bows,  and  the  coats  of  mail. 

. . . Every  one  with  one  of  his  hands  wrought  in  the  work,  and  with 
the  other  held  his  weapon/’  We  should  take  warning  and  while  we 
build  we  should  be  prepared  for  all  possible  contingencies. 

This  is  a war  in  the  interest  of  imperialism  and  for  the  extension 
of  territory  and  the  expansion  of  trade.  We  can  not  disregard  the 
responsibilities  of  the  situation,  nor  will  we  be  able  to  escape  its  gen- 
eral effect.  Our  government  was  instituted  on  the  broad,  democratic 
principle,  “that  all  men  are  created  equal,  that  they  are  endowed  by 
their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  Rights,  that  among  these  are 
Life,  Liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  Happiness.  That  to  secure  these 
rights,  Governments  are  instituted  among  men,  deriving  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed.”  We  believe  that  we  have 
established  the  wisdom  and  administrative  efficiency  of  our  principle 
of  government,  and  that  we  have  shown,  by  experience  and  practical 
demonstration,  that  it  is  possible  for  all  civilized,  white  races  to  live 
together  in  peace,  under  democratic  institutions  and  a common  repub- 
lican form  of  government.  Indeed,  under  the  necessities  of  our  situa- 
tion, we  have  undertaken  to  show  that  the  operation  of  our  principle 
and  form  of  government  need  not  be  limited  to  the  white  races.  This 
expansion  of  our  theory  to  include  all  races  is  yet  in  an  experimental 
stage,  but  the  principle  and  policy  has  been  supported  by  many  of  our 
ablest  statesmen  and  we  have  sacrificed  many  valuable  lives  and  great 
treasure  in  order  to  write  the  expansion  of  this  principle  into  our 
organic  law.  We  have  taken  these  fundamental  principles  of  govern- 
ment to  Cuba  and  the  Philippine  Islands  and  we  are  trying  to  estab- 
lish them  in  Mexico.  If  our  theories  are  not  correct  and  can  not  be 
maintained  on  a stable  basis,  our  government  is  a monumental  failure. 
As  a nation  we  must,  for  the  present,  be  neutral ; if  we  still  have  faith 
in  republican  form  of  government,  we  can  not  be  neutral  in  our  sym- 
pathies. 

God  has  appointed  no  vice  regent  in  this  country,  nor  do  we  be- 
lieve that  we  are  the  chosen  people  of  God ; charity  is  God’s  vice  regent 
— truth,  virtue  and  liberty  His  only  weapons  in  this  country.  The 


47 


sword  will  be  placed  in  the  hand  of  no  man,  except  by  the  will 
of  the  people.  In  the  most  troublous  period  of  this  nation’s  his- 
tory there  came  from  the  people  a Christ-like  man,  who  published 
and  practised  the  doctrine  of  “malice  toward  none,  with  charity  for 
all.”  In  the  life  of  that  illustrious  man  this  nation  found  “a  new  birth 
of  freedom”  and  a resolve  “that  government  of  the  people,  by  the 
people,  for  the  people,  shall  not  perish  from  the  earth.”  The  vice  re- 
gent of  God  who  sacked  Louvain  will  find  no  place  in  the  hearts  of  the 
people  who  revere  the  memory  of  Abraham  Lincoln. 

“Thermopylae  had  her  messenger  of  defeat;  the  Alamo  had  none.” 
If  in  the  story  of  those  heroic  deeds  we  find  an  inspiration,  what  splen- 
did monuments  will  be  built  on  the  ruins  of  Louvain ; and  in  the  hearts 
of  our  children  the  memory  of  the  men  who  fell  at  Liege  will  be  an 
incentive  to  the  highest  ideals  of  a brave  and  cultured  people.  If  it 
be  true  that  a land  without  ruins  is  a land  without  memories,  what 
eloquent  memories  are  found  in  the  land  of  the  Belgians. 

“The  triumphs  of  might  are  transient — they  pass  and  are  forgot- 
ten— the  sufferings  of  right  are  graven  deepest  on  the  chronicle  of 
nations.” 


“Fer  out  of  the  gloom  future  brightness  is  born, 

As  after  the  night  comes  the  sunrise  of  morn; 

And  the  graves  of  the  dead  with  the  grass  overgrown 
May  yet  form  the  footstool  of  liberty’s  throne, 

And  each  single  wreck  in  the  war-path  of  might, 

Shall  yet  be  a rock  in  the  temple  of  right.” 

With  Red  Eyes 

(Reprinted  by  permission  of  The  Outlook.) 

Those  who  are  dwelling  in  the  track  of  a forest  fire  have  little 
inclination  to  theorize  upon  the  chemical  prenomenon  that  is  trans- 
forming their  homes  into  gray  ash.  Fire  is  to  them  a terror  that  flies 
both  by  night  and  by  day,  a demon  to  be  fought  that  life  itself  may 
endure. 

In  such  a time  of  dread,  conduct  is  not  so  much  a matter  of 
formula  as  of  emotion.  We  can  judge  the  lives  of  fire-fighters  and 
fire-fleers  only  when  we  know  the  measure  of  their  passion. 

For  us  who  watch  the  consuming  devastation  in  Europe  from  the 
vantage-point  of  a neutral  country,  there  is  oftentimes  the  temptation 
of  passing  a too  academic  judgment  upon  the  motives  of  the  belliger- 
ents. We  weigh  white  paper  against  white,  orange  with  gray,  and 
then,  secure  in  our  own  opinions,  wonder  why  our  conclusions  are  not 

48 


universally  accepted.  From  passionate  people  we  demand  cool  logic. 
In  frenzy  we  look  for  ordered  reason.  From  eyes  red  with  hate  we 
ask  judicial  vision. 

Hate  and  passion  we  can  indeed  appraise  at  their  true  worth — 
condemning  or  sustaining  the  justifications  offered  for  their  existence, 
according  to  the  evidence  of  history.  None  the  less  is  it  true  that,  if 
we  ourselves  would  see  clearly,  we  cannot  simply  choose  to  ignore  the 
direct  expression  of  these  national  passions  and  national  hates.  They 
are,  indeed,  a vital  element  in  the  Story  of  the  War. 

That  is  why  in  this  place  we  print  two  poems.  One  is  by  Ernst 
Lissauer,  translated  from  “Jugend”  by  Barbara  Henderson,  and  re- 
cently published  in  the  New  York  “Times”;  the  other  is  by  Henry 
Chappell,  a name  that  may  be  familiar  to  some  of  our  readers  as  that 
of  the  “railway  poet  of  Bath.” 

A Chant  of  Hate  Against  England 

By  Ernst  Lissauer  in  “Jugend” 

Rendered  into  English  verse  by  Barbara  Henderson 

Reprinted  from  the  New  York  “Times” 

French  and  Russian,  they  matter  not, 

A blow  for  a blow  and  a shot  for  a shot ; 

We  love  them  not,  we  hate  them  not, 

We  hold  the  Weichsel  and  Vosges-gate, 

We  have  but  one  and  only  hate, 

We  love  as  one,  we  hate  as  one, 

We  have  one  foe  and  one  alone. 

He  is  known  to  you  all,  he  is  known  to  you  all, 

He  crouches  behind  the  dark-gray  flood, 

Full  of  envy,  of  rage,  of  craft,  of  gall, 

Cut  off  by  waves  that  are  thicker  than  blood. 

Come,  let  us  stand  at  the  Judgment  place, 

An  oath  to  swear  to,  face  to  face, 

An  oath  of  bronze  no  wind  can  shake, 

An  oath  for  our  sons  and  their  sons  to  take. 

Come,  hear  the  word,  repeat  the  word, 

Throughout  the  Fatherland  make  it  heard. 

We  will  never  forego  our  hate, 

We  have  all  but  a single  hate 
We  love  as  one,  we  hate  as  one, 

We  have  one  foe  and  one  alone — 

ENGLAND! 


49 


In  the  captain’s  mess,  in  the  banquet-hall, 

Sat  feasting  the  officers,  one  and  all, 

Like  a saber  blow,  like  the  swing  of  a sail, 

One  seized  his  glass  held  high  to  hail ; 
Sharp-snapped  like  the  stroke  of  a rudder’s  play, 
Spoke  three  words  only:  “To  the  Day!” 

Whose  glass  this  fate? 

They  had  all  but  a single  hate. 

Who  was  thus  known? 

They  had  one  foe  and  one  alone — 

ENGLAND! 

Take  you  the  folk  of  the  earth  in  pay, 

With  bars  of  gold  your  ramparts  lay, 

Bedeck  the  ocean  with  bow  on  bow, 

Ye  reckon  well,  but  not  well  enough  now. 

French  and  Russian,  they  matter  not, 

A blow  for  a blow,  a shot  for  a shot, 

We  fight  the  battle  with  bronze  and  steel, 

And  the  time  that  is  coming  Peace  will  seal. 

You  will  we  hate  with  a lasting  hate, 

We  will  never  forego  our  hate, 

Hate  by  water  and  hate  by  land, 

Hate  of  the  head  and  hate  of  the  hand. 

Hate  of  the  hammer  and  hate  of  the  crown, 

Hate  of  seventy  millions,  choking  down. 

We  love  as  one,  we  hate  as  one, 

We  have  one  foe  and  one  alone — 

ENGLAND! 


The  Day 

By  Henry  Chappell 

You  boasted  the  Day,  and  you  toasted  the  Day, 
And  now  the  Day  has  come ; 
Blasphemer,  braggart,  and  coward  all, 

Little  you  reck  of  the  numbing  ball, 

The  blasting  shell,  or  the  “White  arm’s”  fall, 

As  they  speed  poor  humans  home. 

You  spied  for  the  Day,  you  lied  for  the  Day, 
And  woke  the  Day’s  red  spleen; 
Monster,  who  asked  God’s  aid  divine, 

Then  strewed  His  seas  with  the  ghastly  mine — 
Not  all  the  waters  of  all  the  Rhine 

Can  wash  thy  foul  hands  clean. 


50 


You  dreamed  for  the  Day,  you  schemed  for  the  Day, 

Watch  how  the  Day  will  go ; 

Slayer  of  age  and  youth  and  prime 
(Defenseless  slain  for  never  a crime), 

Thou  art  steeped  in  blood  as  a hog  in  slime — 

False  friend  and  cowardly  foe. 

You  have  sown  for  the  Day,  you  have  grown  for  the  Day, 
Yours  is  the  Harvest  red; 

Can  you  hear  the  groans  and  the  awful  cries? 

Can  you  see  the  heap  of  the  slain  that  lies, 

And  sightless  turned  to  the  flame-split  skies 
The  glassy  eyes  of  the  dead  ? 

You  have  longed  for  the  Day,  you  have  wronged  for  the  Day 
That  lit  the  awful  flame. 

’Tis  nothing  to  you  that  hill  and  plain 
Yield  sheaves  of  dead  men  amid  the  grain ; 

That  widows  mourn  for  their  loved  ones  slain, 

And  mothers  curse  thy  name ! 

But  after  the  Day  there’s  a price  to  pay 
For  the  sleepers  under  the  sod ; 

And  He  you  have  mocked  for  many  a day — 

Listen,  and  hear  what  he  has  to  say : 

“Vengeance  is  mine,  I will  repay.” 

What  can  you  say  to  God? 


£1 


U( 


S LI 


